Maybe it is just a big mouse?
Or a hamitic/caucasian elephant.
Maybe the artist was drunk.
Maybe i'm drunk right now.
Maya weren't contemporaries of the Kemetans, but the Olmecs (& their predecessors) were...
There are the Olmec pyramids, the famed Olmec heads, etc., plus the fact that there's evidence of "new world" plants being consumed in AE (e.g. coca). Some even suggest that the pyramids in China may have links to AE...
What do you all think of this?...
So no comment just links,
Here is a positive review: http://www.hartford-hwp.com/archives/45a/010.html
Here is a negative review: http://www.ferris.edu/isar/arcade/AFAM/VSertima.htm
Dr. Van Sertima's rebuttal: http://www.africawithin.com/vansertima/reply_critics.htm
[This message has been edited by rasol (edited 08 July 2004).]
quote:
Originally posted by sunstorm2004:
Do you guys think that AE had links to civilizations in the Americas? I spotted a pic of a Mayan scribe & I was struck by how closely it resembled images of AE scribes...Maya weren't contemporaries of the Kemetans, but the Olmecs (& their predecessors) were...
There are the Olmec pyramids, the famed Olmec heads, etc., plus the fact that there's evidence of "new world" plants being consumed in AE (e.g. coca). Some even suggest that the pyramids in China may have links to AE...
What do you all think of this?...
Now there you go! Sounds like a topic with a potential of generating interest.
Of course, AE civilization has had impact all over the world, and not just the nations with which they have colonized or traded with. This is one reason for the tug- of-war in claiming this civilization. Their innovative ways of mathematical application in building structures and other stuff can be seen today around the globe. There is a pyramid in Greece, which is hardly talked about by Greeks ( I hope I don't have to elaborate), that was no doubt influenced by the Egyptians(ref; Richard Poe, Black Spark, White Fire). I wouldn't doubt the same is true with Chinese pyramids. After all, the Egyptians did almost go that far. Remember the Cholchians, who were part of what is now Georgia. In fact there is evidence of some black people having lived in parts of China. This is no coincidence. A lot of people fail to see that the world was completely different place in the Ancient times. People tend to look at the Ancient period from modern perspective, which is a serious mistake. Let's also take monotheism: This is now a common practice in many parts of the world, including America. The origins of this can also be traced back to AE. Papyrus, is the earliest form of paper. The concept has been developed over time, to generate what we now call paper(made from pulp). There are many more AE innovations, that modern day Americans and others across the globe are definitely taking advantage of.
I suggest you take a look at Wally's thread dealing with AE inventions. He provides a list of AE innovations, some of which can arguably be traced back to AE.
[This message has been edited by supercar (edited 08 July 2004).]
quote:
Originally posted by rasol:
Dr. Ivan Van Sertima's "They Came before Columbus", be warned, the subject of your thread is defacto "ethnic", nothing intelligible may be said about this issue that evades ethnicity.So no comment just links,
Here is a positive review: http://www.hartford-hwp.com/archives/45a/010.html
Here is a negative review: http://www.ferris.edu/isar/arcade/AFAM/VSertima.htm
Dr. Van Sertima's rebuttal: http://www.africawithin.com/vansertima/reply_critics.htm
[This message has been edited by rasol (edited 08 July 2004).]
Those links were enjoyable to read. It is true that history for the most part cannot be fully discussed without the issue of ethnicity arising!
quote:
Originally posted by Osiris II:
The subject of contact between the Ancient Egyptians and the New World is indeed very interesting. Rasol, thanks for posting those three sites--they are, indeed, thought-provoking. It's quite clear that some influence is apparent, but how it occurred is impossible to say. To just completely shut your eyes to such compelling argument is to totally ignore what has to be true. But again, how did it happen? Let's rule out alien transportation and exploring expeditions by Egypt. It had to be accidental in some way--a more logical vessel that had lost its way on a journey from Egypt (the really didn't do much exploring) or perhaps some brave trader going from the coast of So. America. We will probably never know for sure. But again, it is a very interesting subject.
If you dig deep enough in history, you'll be surprised at the number of "expeditions" carried out by Ancient Egyptians, who wanted to get a feel for the world around them. This is yet another side of the Ancient Egyptians, that is often overlooked. Not only the Egyptians, but other Africans had carried out similar journeys. In most cases, they knew exactly what they were doing.
[This message has been edited by supercar (edited 09 July 2004).]
Thoughts?
quote:
Originally posted by rasol:
Taking the devil's advocate approach, I find it interesting that if the contact between the Olmec's and the Kem/Kushites were as extensive as some interpretations suggest. It would mean that Kemet arguably had more of a (Material) lasting impact on American Civilization than it did in much of Africa, or in say...Indian Asia. And....that is one heck of a trip to be making in 1200 BC!Thoughts?
When you say "Material" lasting impact, what do you mean by that? Do you mean the stuctures the left there?
I already discussed the implications I felt exploration to the Americas were not possible by AE,and I believe these explainations are sutiable for this topic. Let me suggest that the Meso-American pyramids are entirely different from the AE model. For one,most served as ceremonical temples built over caves which was never seen in AE soceity. Also the pyramid shape is relativly easy to build;therefore the explanation of Egyptians going to places like China to the Americas makes no sense.
quote:
Originally posted by ausar:
Sometimes people want to play super-diffusionist much like early racist Egyptologist like Sir Grafton Smith did with his theories of ancient Egyptianc civilizing people from the British Isles down to the Americas. I feel people spend much more precious time trying to find AE in other people's culture instead of appreciating AE for who they were.
I already discussed the implications I felt exploration to the Americas were not possible by AE,and I believe these explainations are sutiable for this topic. Let me suggest that the Meso-American pyramids are entirely different from the AE model. For one,most served as ceremonical temples built over caves which was never seen in AE soceity. Also the pyramid shape is relativly easy to build;therefore the explanation of Egyptians going to places like China to the Americas makes no sense.
Apparently from Olmec head stones, there can be doubt that Africans were present there. The question is where did these Africans come from, and how did they get there. Their presence there pre-dates Columbus "discovery" of America.
quote:
posted by ausur:
For one,most served as ceremonical temples built over caves which was never seen in AE soceity. Also the pyramid shape is relativly easy to build;therefore the explanation of Egyptians going to places like China to the Americas makes no sense.
Not that I am claiming with certainty that the Egyptians built the pyramids in China, but would the Chinese have associated pyramids with tombs or temples, without an outside influence. AE pyramids pre-date these pyramids. Obviously due to cultural differences, their way of building pyramids is going to vary from that of Egyptians. There has indeed been archeological presence of negroid looking people in the Chinese region. Artifacts depicting these people have been recovered. These people may not have been from Egypt or Nubia, but then where did they come from? While pyramids are relatively easy to build, scientists have noticed a certain precision with which the Egyptian pyramid complex had been built. In those days, coming up with a pyramid wasn't just a straight forward idea. Then comes, the pyramid presence in Greece. I don't think I need to elaborate on how that got there!
[This message has been edited by supercar (edited 09 July 2004).]
quote:
Originally posted by supercar:
When you say "Material" lasting impact, what do you mean by that? Do you mean the stuctures the left there?
For the sake of argument, yes.
quote:
Originally posted by rasol:
For the sake of argument, yes.
Thanx. Don't mean to be a pest; just clarifying statements!
In case anyone is harboring an idea that Egyptians or Nubians found their way to America, think again. Take a look at Ausur's statement, and see what can be concluded from it. I for one, can't say that the negroid people who found their way to America came from Egypt, but I sure would like to know where they came from!
[This message has been edited by supercar (edited 09 July 2004).]
>>I already discussed the implications I felt exploration to the Americas were not possible by AE,and I believe these explainations are sutiable for this topic. <<
But don't you think there might have been direct or indirect trade, given the evidence of New World plants making their way to AE, and Egyptian maceheads finding their way to China?
---
An aside: I watched a television show (long time ago) which presented (as part of the evidence of New World contact), that Ancient Egyptians might have used the coca plant for medicinal or "recreational" purposes. In passing, I think the show also mentioned marijuana.
Did the Ancient Egyptians use recreational drugs? Is there evidence of this in the literature, or are researchers just going on forensics?
quote:
Apparently from Olmec head stones, there can be doubt that Africans were present there. The question is where did these Africans come from, and how did they get there. Their presence there pre-dates Columbus "discovery" of America.
The problem h ere is we fin[d no traces of monumental stone being carved in Western or Central Africa around the time of the Olmecs. The First Olmecs is roughly contemporary with the 19th dyansty in ancient Egypt.
Tell me why then no African crops found it's way into the new world except a bottle gourd which can float to the Americas.
The earliest Americans were Melanesian types that had very much the profile of an African but was genetically different from an African.
Maybe the Olmecs come from these early Melanesian types or the current native population living in the area have the same features. Show how African contact is plausible around this period?
quote:
Not that I am claiming with certainty that the Egyptians built the pyramids in China, but would the Chinese have associated pyramids with tombs or temples, without an outside influence
Like I mentioned the pyramid shape is a unversial shape that is relativly easy to build. The Chinese pyramid look more like mounds than pyramids.
quote:
. AE pyramids pre-date these pyramids. Obviously due to cultural differences, their way of building pyramids is going to vary from that of Egyptians.
There are pyramids in Mongolia that predate the ones on the Giza plateau. The concept and shape of the pyramid in AE had developments from the theological belief associated with the mound of creation or the rays of the sun.
The first pyramids evovled from pit tombs in pre-dyanstic Egypt going to mastabas to what we see on the Giza plataeu.
quote:
There has indeed been archeological presence of negroid looking people in the Chinese region. Artifacts depicting these people have been recovered
You mean little negrito people that are amung the first to migrate to Asia. Negrito types inhabited Southern China to Japan untill many were exterminted or driven out.
quote:
These people may not have been from Egypt or Nubia, but then where did they come from?
They came out of Africa probabaly 40,000 years ago and either merged or where gradually replaced by Austric and Mongolid types.
quote:
While pyramids are relatively easy to build, scientists have noticed a certain precision with which the Egyptian pyramid complex had been built. In those days, coming up with a pyramid wasn't just a straight forward idea
The shape was relativly universal. AE architecture was connected to their believes in creation myths and symbology within the myths. Can you show me a parallel within the other architecture that corresponds to AE?
quote:
Then comes, the pyramid presence in Greece. I don't think I need to elaborate on how that got there!
You can't use pyramids to prove cultural migration but perhaps you can show some borrowed concepts in other cultures. I seen the pyramids in Greece and most are very small and don't look like the type of pyramids built during the 12th dyansty.
.
quote:
I for one, can't say that the negroid people who found their way to America came from Egypt, but I sure would like to know where they came from!
The possible explanation is that some might have came from the expedition of the Mali empire by Mana Musa's brother Abu Bakari II.
quote:
But don't you think there might have been direct or indirect trade, given the evidence of New World plants making their way to AE, and Egyptian maceheads finding their way to China?
Very possible considering that it's very possible the Phonecian people might have made it to the new world. However,I have yet to see definite proof any American crop was found in AE tombs. If so-called regular trips back and forth to the new world was possible then pollen traces of crops from American origin would be found in AE. Besides the ''Cocaine mummy'' not much has been found to prove this directly.
quote:
An aside: I watched a television show (long time ago) which presented (as part of the evidence of New World contact), that Ancient Egyptians might have used the coca plant for medicinal or "recreational" purposes. In passing, I think the show also mentioned marijuana.
Be very careful with what you watch on television. My suggestion would be to turn off the television to reserch the subject throughly. Hemp has been found in AE but marijuana has not.
quote:
Did the Ancient Egyptians use recreational drugs? Is there evidence of this in the literature, or are researchers just going on forensics?
The lotus flower was used as a stimulant which also explains why the ''cocaine mummy'' can show traces of Lotus since it gives off a similar narcotic effect.
quote:
Posted by ausur:
The shape was relativly universal. AE architecture was connected to their believes in creation myths and symbology within the myths. Can you show me a parallel within the other architecture that corresponds to AE?
Okay let us go back to my original quote:
“Not that I am claiming with certainty that the Egyptians built the pyramids in China, but would the Chinese have associated pyramids with tombs or temples, without an outside influence…”
Now, bear in mind that from the above quote, it is clear that I didn’t give Egyptians the credit for building the Chinese pyramids. But I did imply that they had to be influenced by people of another culture. This is where I did not rule out the possibility of that foreign group being Africans, or perhaps Egyptians or Nubians. It is known that Chinese were nomads. C. A. Winters talked about this and I quote: http://www.geocities.com/Tokyo/Bay/7051/Southchina1.htm
“As in the African aqualithic, an extensive mound culture existed in China, an area strectching from i ts plateau in the west to the Western coast of the Pacific ocean, it includes the Huang-Huai(the Yellow River and the Huai River) plain of North China and the plain of the lower valley of the Yangtze River of central China, these mounds lie in the Ancient line of the Austronesian habitation. In accordance with oral tradi tion and Chinese proto-history mounds were in existence during the time of Huangti, and Fu-Hsi as reflected in the legendary narrative of the burial of Tai-Hao at Wan Chiul - chiu.
The mound culture began around 3,000 BC in China 7,000 years after a similar cul ture had developed in central and North Africa, which moved step by step to the lower valley of the Yangtze River, starting originally from the lower valley of the Yellow River. By about 1200 BC, the people practiced agriculture and ate aquatic animals.At the Kiangsu Province mound site called the Hu Shu culture,the mounds were man-made knolls called 'terraced sites '. The mounds are flat on the top, here the people placed their dwellings. These mounds served three purposes i) burial mounds, ii) religious places (i.e.,high ground) and iii) habitation. The mounds are believed to have been introduced by the people to China from the Euphrates-Tigris valley who are believed to have introduced the arts .”
This may explain the beginnings of the mounds you pointed out earlier. In your own words:
Like I mentioned the pyramid shape is a unversial shape that is relativly easy to build. The Chinese pyramid look more like mounds than pyramids.
Now let us dissect another section from my original comment:
“Obviously due to cultural differences, their way of building pyramids is going to vary from that of Egyptians. There has indeed been archeological presence of negroid looking people in the Chinese region. Artifacts depicting these people have been recovered. These people may not have been from Egypt or Nubia, but then where did they come from? ”
I think the above quote speaks for itself. I never said it was the Egyptians who built or influenced the Chinese to build their pyramids, although I didn’t rule out that possibility!
quote:
Originally posted by Ausur:
Originally posted by supercar:
Apparently from Olmec head stones, there can be doubt that Africans were present there. The question is where did these Africans come from, and how did they get there. Their presence there pre-dates Columbus "discovery" of America.The problem h ere is we fin[d no traces of monumental stone being carved in Western or Central Africa around the time of the Olmecs. The First Olmecs is roughly contemporary with the 19th dyansty in ancient Egypt.
Tell me why then no African crops found it's way into the new world except a bottle gourd which can float to the Americas.
The earliest Americans were Melanesian types that had very much the profile of an African but was genetically different from an African.
Maybe the Olmecs come from these early Melanesian types or the current native population living in the area have the same features. Show how African contact is plausible around this period?
Here is a quote from Dr. Clyde A Winters about how the Africans found their way to America: http://www.geocities.com/Tokyo/Bay/7051/Skeletal.htm
“The Olmec came from Saharan Africa 3200 years ago. They came in boats which are depicted in the Izapa Stela no.5, in twelve migratory waves. These Proto-Olmecs belonged to seven clans which served as the base for the Olmec people.
Physical anthropologist use many terms to refer to the African type represented by Olmec skeletal remains including Armenoid, Dongolan, Loponoid and Equatorial. The evidence of African skeletons found at many Olmec sites, and their trading partners from the Old World found by Dr. Andrzej Wiercinski prove the cosmopolitan nature of Olmec society. This skeletal evidence explains the discovery of many African tribes in Mexico and Central America when Columbus discovered the Americas (de Quatrefages, 1836).
The skeletal material from Tlatilco and Cerro de las Mesas and evidence that the Olmecs used an African writing to inscribe their monuments and artifacts, make it clear that Africans were a predominant part of the Olmec population. These Olmecs constructed complex pyramids and large sculptured monuments weighing tons. The Maya during the Pre-Classic period built pyramids over the Olmec pyramids to disguise the Olmec origin of these pyramids.
The iconography of the classic Olmec and Mayan civilization show no correspondence in facial features. But many contemporary Maya and other Amerind groups show African characteristics and DNA. Underhill, et al (1996) found that the Mayan people have an African Y chromosome. This would explain the "puffy" faces of contemporary Amerinds, which are incongruent with the Mayan type associated with classic Mayan sculptures and stelas.”
[This message has been edited by supercar (edited 09 July 2004).]
quote:
Originally posted by supercar:
Here is a quote from Dr. Clyde A Winters about how the Africans found their way to America: http://www.geocities.com/Tokyo/Bay/7051/Skeletal.htm“The Olmec came from Saharan Africa 3200 years ago. They came in boats which are depicted in the Izapa Stela no.5, in twelve migratory waves. These Proto-Olmecs belonged to seven clans which served as the base for the Olmec people.
Physical anthropologist use many terms to refer to the African type represented by Olmec skeletal remains including Armenoid, Dongolan, Loponoid and Equatorial. The evidence of African skeletons found at many Olmec sites, and their trading partners from the Old World found by Dr. Andrzej Wiercinski prove the cosmopolitan nature of Olmec society. This skeletal evidence explains the discovery of many African tribes in Mexico and Central America when Columbus discovered the Americas (de Quatrefages, 1836).
The skeletal material from Tlatilco and Cerro de las Mesas and evidence that the Olmecs used an African writing to inscribe their monuments and artifacts, make it clear that Africans were a predominant part of the Olmec population. These Olmecs constructed complex pyramids and large sculptured monuments weighing tons. The Maya during the Pre-Classic period built pyramids over the Olmec pyramids to disguise the Olmec origin of these pyramids.
The iconography of the classic Olmec and Mayan civilization show no correspondence in facial features. But many contemporary Maya and other Amerind groups show African characteristics and DNA. Underhill, et al (1996) found that the Mayan people have an African Y chromosome. This would explain the "puffy" faces of contemporary Amerinds, which are incongruent with the Mayan type associated with classic Mayan sculptures and stelas.”[This message has been edited by supercar (edited 09 July 2004).]
I don't know if Clyde Winters is a reliable source one would like to depend on.
quote:
Originally posted by S.Mohammad:
I don't know if Clyde Winters is a reliable source one would like to depend on.
Whether he is considered reliable or not, I am welcoming anyone who can refute his comments with solid references or evidence!
quote:
Originally posted by supercar:
Whether he is considered reliable or not, I am welcoming anyone who can refute his comments with solid references or evidence!
According to Clyde Winters Greeks were originally black, there were Black Shang, and the Olmecs were black. he is charlatan, ditto Runoko Rashidi.
This carving of an elephant was found among Olmec artifacts. Where would an Olmec have knowledge of an Elephant from??
Questions were asked about the elephant artifact and what it was indicative of so it was promptly removed from the exhibit......of course you don't have to guess why it was removed
We don't know if the African presence in Ancient america had KMetian links, but without question there were africans in ancient america.
Throughout there history, there is a boat load of evidence to support this.
quote:
Originally posted by S.Mohammad:
According to Clyde Winters Greeks were originally black, there were Black Shang, and the Olmecs were black. he is charlatan, ditto Runoko Rashidi.
That's really a strawman form of argument though. Meaning:
* smith asserts proposition x
* smith is alleged to believe in y
* jones argues that proposition y is patently absurd.
* we are to accept that proposition x has been refuted by jones, when in fact, he has merely avoided it.
[This message has been edited by rasol (edited 10 July 2004).]
Maybe it is just a big mouse?
Or a hamitic/caucasian elephant.
Maybe the artist was drunk.
Maybe i'm drunk right now.
quote:
Originally posted by S.Mohammad:
According to Clyde Winters Greeks were originally black, there were Black Shang, and the Olmecs were black. he is charlatan, ditto Runoko Rashidi.
Like I said, someone needs to refute his comments here. What he said about Greeks, has nothing to do with what he is saying about the Olmecs. In any case, it seems that both Greeks and Olmecs have left sculptures with strong physical affinities with Negroes, indicating their presence there at one point. While saying that Greeks in general are black is wrong, why would it be so far fetched to say that Africans were indeed present in these areas? Let us not resort to Lefkowitz tactics of discrediting people because they might have said something erroneous in past. Let us deal with the issue at hand. Just refute his comments about Olmecs, and enlighten me. Now, I think that would be fair!
Show me some strong evidence that Africans were not in Ancient America, as Dr. Winters pointed out!!!
[This message has been edited by supercar (edited 10 July 2004).]
quote:
Posted by ausur:
Tell me why then no African crops found it's way into the new world except a bottle gourd which can float to the Americas.
This is a somewhat weak argument. Were African plants found in the Chinese region, where the early Africans had settled? Dr. Winters makes a better argument by connecting the dots with writings found in Olmec, early Shang and Xia dynasties. He shows the relationship between the writings found on Olmec monuments, those found in China, and the early Saharan inhabitants, with particular reference to the Manding writings. That Sahara is the same African region, where the Kemetians and Nubians came from.
quote:
Posted by ausur:Quote by supercar:
I for one, can't say that the negroid people who found their way to America came from Egypt, but I sure would like to know where they came from!
The possible explanation is that some might have came from the expedition of the Mali empire by Mana Musa's brother Abu Bakari II.
I know that in the later periods some Africans reached America, but the Olmec head stones, artifacts, and potteries with Olmec inscriptions, pre-date the Mansa Musa Mali empire. We have already mentioned the relationship between the Olmec inscriptions and those of Proto-Sahara. Apparently Africans reached the American shores much earlier than that.
[This message has been edited by supercar (edited 10 July 2004).]
quote:
Originally posted by supercar:
Like I said, someone needs to refute his comments here. What he said about Greeks, has nothing to do with what he is saying about the Olmecs. In any case, it seems that both Greeks and Olmecs have left sculptures with strong physical affinities with Negroes, indicating their presence there at one point. While saying that Greeks in general are black is wrong, why would it be so far fetched to say that Africans were indeed present in these areas? Let us not resort to Lefkowitz tactics of discrediting people because they might have said something erroneous in past. Let us deal with the issue at hand. Just refute his comments about Olmecs, and enlighten me. Now, I think that would be fair!Show me some strong evidence that Africans were not in Ancient America, as Dr. Winters pointed out!!!
[This message has been edited by supercar (edited 10 July 2004).]
See for yourself
http://clyde.winters.tripod.com/chapter6.html
quote:
Originally posted by S.Mohammad:
See for yourself
http://clyde.winters.tripod.com/chapter6.html
S.Mohammad you are continuing to dodge my requests. Whether Clyde Winters assessment of Greeks is correct or not, that is not the issue here. We are talking about the Olmecs. Prove to me that Dr. Winters is wrong about the African connection to the early Olmec civilization. Whether Dr. Winters has been wrong in the past is irrelevant to me. I just want someone to prove him wrong here. So if Dr. Winters said that Greeks were in Ancient Egypt at one point, should we then dismiss it, because he was supposedly wrong at some point in time? I hope we won't have to take such route in discrediting people all the time. Prove to me that you know better than Dr. Winters about the early Olmecs, and how they didn't have a relationship with Africans in the Ancient times!
By the way, this brings me back to my original comment:
"In any case, it seems that both Greeks and Olmecs have left sculptures with strong physical affinities with Negroes, indicating their presence there at one point. While saying that Greeks in general are black is wrong, why would it be so far fetched to say that Africans were indeed present in these areas? Let us not resort to Lefkowitz tactics of discrediting people because they might have said something erroneous in past. Let us deal with the issue at hand."
[This message has been edited by supercar (edited 10 July 2004).]
[This message has been edited by supercar (edited 10 July 2004).]
This American Indian Mask called "Mongoloid" eyes
Those "mongoloid" eyes again. (see what I mean you can always find African traits in all races)
Here is another good link http://www.theperspective.org/olmecs.html
[This message has been edited by homeylu (edited 14 July 2004).]
quote:
Originally posted by homeylu:
Hey supercar, that was a great link, I've saved it to my favorites! I've read a great deal about the tribal marks on the Olmec heads, and thought about Africans as well. Here is a photo of a Nubian woman with tribal marks. The first time I saw this photo, what came to my mind, is that if this woman was several shades lighter, she could easily past for Oriental. so obviously the slanted eyes of the Ohlmecs is another African trait.This American Indian Mask called "Mongoloid" eyes
Those "mongoloid" eyes again. (see what I mean you can always find African traits in all races)
[img]Here is another good link http://www.theperspective.org/olmecs.html
Can you post the pics agin b/c they did not come through.
“In 1976, Ivan Van Sertima proposed that New World civilizations
were strongly influenced by diffusion from Africa. The first and
most important contact, he argued, was between Nubians and Olmecs
in 700 B.C., and it was followed by other contacts from Mali in
A.D. 1300. This theory has spread widely in the African-American
community, both lay and scholarly, but it has never been
evaluated at length by Mesoamericanists. This article shows the
proposal to be devoid of any foundation. First, no genuine
African artifact has ever been found in a controlled
archaeological excavation in the New World. The presence of
African-origin plants such as the bottle gourd (Lagenaria
siceraria) or of African genes in New World cotton (Gossypium
hirsutum) shows that there was contact between Old World and the
New, but this contact occurred too long ago to have involved any
human agency and is irrelevant to Egyptian-Olmec contact. The
colossal Olmec heads, which resemble a stereotypical “Negroid,”
were carved hundreds of years before the arrival of the presumed
models. Additionally, Nubians, who come from a desert environment
and have long, high noses, do not resemble their supposed
“portraits.” Claims for the diffusion of pyramid building and
mummification are also fallacious.”---Gabriel Haslip-Viera,
Bernard Ortiz de Montellano, and Warren Barbour
Olmecs were indigenous. They weren't Africans, Asians, nor Caucasians!
"Robbing Native American Cultures: Van Sertima's Afrocentricity and the Olmecs" by Gabriel Haslip-Viera, Benard Ortiz de Montellano, and Warren Barbour.
David L. Browman (from the Department of Anthropology, Washington University) on the Olmecs
Michael D. Coe (from the Peabody Museum of Natural History, Yale University) on the Olmecs
Ann Cyphers (from the Instituto de Investigaciones Antropologicas, Universidad Nacional Autonoma de Mexico) on the Olmecs
Gerald Early (African and Afro-American Studies, Washington University) on the Olmecs
Peter T. Furst (from the University of Pennsylvania of Archaeology and Anthropology) on the Olmecs
Rebecca B. Gonzalez Lauck (from Centro INAH Tabasco)
Jaime Litvak (from the Instituto de Investigaciones Antropologicas, Universidad Nacional Autonoma de Mexico) on the Olmecs
More from Bernard Ortiz de Montellano, Gabriel Haslip, and Warren Barbour
THIS REFUTES THAT THE OLMECS WERE AFRICANS!
Ivan Van Sertima, an Afrocentric, didn't participate in the public forum of Anthropologists because he didn't want his arguments countered.
Exposing all the other Afrocentrics, such as Clyde Williams, who follow the footsteps of Van Sertima.
We see that the strategy of black and white people is to fool us Mexicans to believe the Olmecs were black by making assertions based upon uncertainties that are subject to interpretation.
Black people are trying to say that the Mayans and Olmecs were originally black by the fact that African people are in the regions were the Olmec and Mayan artifacts are to be found. This is simply deception! We all know that the Africans in the Olmec and Mayan regions are descendants of black slaves that were brought by the Spaniards. Now you have black people claiming that the Africans there are not descendants of slaves but are descendats of the Olmecs and Mayans. They are not descendants of the original Olmecas and Mayans but of descendants of African slaves brought by the Spaniards!
Black people are trying to decieve us by placing African pictures next to an Olmec head implying that they look the same therefore black people are Olmecs. We can use this same trick and place any picture of any other race with a flat nose and enlarged lips and imply that they were Olmecs. This is deception and trickery! If we place an Indigenous picture next to the Olmec head we without a doubt can prove that we look the same as the Olmecs and therefore indigenous people are Olmec.
`Naturally African people don't look indigenous! You have black males shaving their African hair or wearing hats so they don't show their distinction from other people. You have black women straightening their hair trying to look indigenous. Even white women are trying to look indigenous! Look at the commercials of white women selling products to get tans trying to look brown like us! White women are dying their hair black to look like us as well! Its funny that black and white people don't want to give us credit for our civilization that we built independant of them yet they want to be us and look like us! They even like eating our food and sleeping with Malinches yet they call us "Wetbacks!"
www.geocities.com/conscious_mexicas
EXTRA INFO
1."Van Sertima's expedition allegedly sailed or drifted westward to the Gulf of Mexico where it came in contact with inferior Olmecs. These individuals created Olmec civilization." - De Montellano, Barbour and Haslip-Viera YEAH RIGHT.
2. None of the early Egyptians and Nubians looked like Negroes. "They have long, narrow noses..." "Short, flat noses are confined to the West African ancestors of African-Americans." Again, "there is no evidence that ancient Nubians ever braided their hair.This style comes from colonial and modern Ethiopia."
3.Modern Egyptians look exactly as they did thousands of years ago. The composition of the Egyptian has not changed over the last 5000 years. Invasions by the Assyrians, Persians, Greeks, Arabs and Romans left them looking the same today as in the dawn of history(A.C. Berry, R. J. Berry and Ucko ).
4.OLMEC HEADS: (a) They are "spitting images of the natives;" (b) they appear dark because some of them were carved out of dark volcanic stone; (c) some were made of white basalt which turned dark over time; (d) ancient Egyptians and Nubians were remote in physiognomy from sub-Saharan Negroes and none of them could have been models for any of the "Negro-looking" heads, {Side note we cannot unequivocally date the heads.}......
Gabriel Haslip-Viera, Bernard Ortiz de Montellano, and Warren Barbour, "Robbing Native American Cultures: Van Sertima's Afrocentricity and the Olemcs," Current Anthropology Volume 38 #3, June 1997.
Bernard Ortiz de Montellano, Gabriel Haslip-Viera, and Warren Barbour, "They were NOT Here before Columbus: Afrocentric Hyperdiffusionism in the 1990s," Ethnohistory 44:2 (Spring 1997).
This essay responds to a theory that has been aggressively promoted as fact by an influential group of Afrocentrists in recent years -- that New World civilizations were created or were influenced by African visitors at key points in the centuries that preceded the European discovery of the Americas. As discussed in this essay, the theory is shown to have no support in the evidence that has been analyzed by specialists in various fields. The essay focuses on the methodological approaches employed by the Afrocentrists in their study of linguistics, terracotta figurines, technological development, and monumental sculpture. A concluding section briefly discusses the repercussions of this theory on ethnic relations in schools, on college campuses, and in North American society as a whole.
From the conclusion: "It is quite clear from the foregoing that claims of an African presence in pre-Columbian America are purely speculative, rigidly diffusionist, and have no foundation in the artifactual, physical, and historical evidence. Nevertheless, the Afrocentric position is routinely articulated in a very forceful manner with few if any caveats. Van Sertima makes reference to the "ample," "overwhelming," "remarkable" and "indisputable" evidence, or he uses phrases such as "there is no doubt" or "there is no question whatever" to support claims (1976:23; 1992a: 24;1992b: 34,43; 1991c [1983]:61)."...
Excerpts from his rebuttal to Barbour, et al:
LIE ONE: - "Van Sertima's expedition allegedly sailed or drifted westward to the Gulf of Mexico where it came in contact with inferior Olmecs. These individuals created Olmec civilization." - De Montellano, Barbour and Haslip-Viera.
THE TRUTH: As far back as 1976, I made my position on this matter very clear. I never said that Africans created or founded American civilization. I said they made contact and all significant contact between two peoples lead to influences. "I think it is necessary to make it clear - since partisan and ethnocentric scholarship seems to be the order of the day - that the emergence of the Negroid face, which the archeological and cultural data overwhelmingly confirm, in no way presupposes the lack of a native originality, the absence of other influences or the automatic eclipse of other faces"-p. 147 of "They Came Before Columbus." See also Journal of African Civilizations, Vol 8, No. 2, 1986 "I cannot subscribe to the notion that civilization suddenly dropped onto the American earth from the Egyptian heaven."
LIE TWO: None of the early Egyptians and Nubians looked like Negroes. "They have long, narrow noses..." "Short, flat noses are confined to the West African ancestors of African-Americans." Again, "there is no evidence that ancient Nubians ever braided their hair. This style comes from colonial and modern Ethiopia."
THE TRUTH: Narrow noses have been found among millions of pure-blooded Africans. We can see this among the Elongated and Nilotic types. My critics know nothing about the variants of Africa, ancient or modern. All the six main variants of the African have been found in the Egyptian and Nubian graves. For examples of ancient braided Nubian hair, see Frank Snowden's "Before Color Prejudice," As for Egypto-Nubians only having narrow noses, see Egyptian pharaohs in Vol 10 and 12 of the JAC and major Nubian pharaohs in Peggy Bertram's essay (JAC, Vol.12) -Ushanaru, Plate 8, p 173; Taharka as the god Amun from Kawa Temples, Plate 9, p. 173; Shabaka, Plate 12, p. 176. Tanwetamani, Plate 16, p. 180. To say that these are narrow noses is to exhibit a colossal ignorance of African types in ancient Egypt and Nubia. The agenda behind this is to bolster their case that they could not have been models for any of the Olmec stone heads.
LIE THREE; Modern Egyptians look exactly as they did thousands of years ago. The composition of the Egyptian has not changed over the last 5000 years. Invasions by the Assyrians, Persians, Greeks, Arabs and Romans left them looking the same today as in the dawn of history.
THE TRUTH: This is a hasty misreading of the work of scholars like A.C. Berry, R. J. Berry and Ucko who point out that there is a remarkable degree of homogeneity in this area for 5000 years. What a superficial reading of this fails to note is that the period ends with the close of the native dynasties BEFORE the invasions of the Assyrian, Persian, Greek, Roman and Arab foreigners
LIE FOUR: Faced with the startlingly Negroid features of some of the Olmec stone heads, my critics try 4 ways out: (a) They are "spitting images of the native;" (b) they appear dark because some of them were carved out of dark volcanic stone; (c) some were made of white basalt which turned dark over time; (d) ancient Egyptians and Nubians were remote in physiognomy from sub-Saharan Negroes and none of them could have been models for any of the "Negro-looking" heads. Having said all that, they then claim that "races are not linked to specific physiognomic traits."
THE TRUTH: No need to shoot them down on this. They turned the gun on themselves.
LIE FIVE: Nothing African has been found in any archeological excavation in the New World.
THE TRUTH: In the drier centers of the Olmec world - at Tlatilco, Cerro de las Mesas and Monte Alban - the Polish craniologist, Andrez Wiercinski, found indisputable evidence of an African presence. The many traits analyzed in these Olmec sites indicated individuals with Negroid traits predominating but with an admixture of other racial traits. This is what I have said. The work of A. Vargas Guadarrama is an important reinforcement of Wiercinski's study. He found that the skulls he examined at Tlatilco, which Wiercinski had classified as Negroid, were "radically different" from other skulls on the site, bearing indisputable similarities to skulls in West Africa and Egypt.
LIE SIX: Van Sertima presents no evidence that a New World cotton (gossypium hirsutum var. punctatum) was transferred from Guinea to the Cape Verde in 1462 by the Portuguese and there is no hard proof that West Africans made a round trip to America before Columbus.
THE TRUTH: I cited evidence in 12 categories to establish Mandingo voyages to the New World circa1310/1311 A.D. This included eyewitness reports from nearly a dozen Europeans, even Columbus himself, metallurgical, linguistic, botanical, navigational, oceanographic, skeletal, epigraphic, cartographic, oral, documented and iconographic evidence. With regard to New World cotton in Africa before 1462, Stephens spoke in two tongues to pacify isolationist colleagues.
LIE SEVEN: My critics claim that I said the bottle gourd came in with Old World voyagers.
THE TRUTH: I was at pains to point out that this is ONE PLANT THAT COULD DRIFT TO AMERICA WITHOUT THE LOSS OF SEED VIABILITY. "Bottle gourds got caught in the pull of currents from the African coast and drifted to America across the Atlantic. Thomas Whitaker and G.F. Carter showed that these gourds are capable of floating in seawater for 7 months without loss of seed viability" - "They Came Before Columbus," 204. They indulge in an even more vicious dishonesty with regard to cotton, claiming that I said "Old World cottons came into America with a fleet of Nubians circa 700 B.C." I never linked cotton transfer to Nubian contact.
LIE EIGHT: My critics admit "we cannot unequivocally date the heads" but they single out one which they say Ann Cyphers confidently dated about 1011 B.C. Note the date! This is 200 years AFTER the Egyptian contact period c. 1200 B.C. Yet they claim that the dating of this one head proves "Negro-looking heads" were being carved, mutilated, and buried prior to 1200 B.C.
THE TRUTH: The stone heads could not have been buried before they were carved.
LIE NINE: Egyptians stopped building pyramids "thousands of years" before 1200 B.C. No relationship whatever exists between Old World/New World pyramids.
THE TRUTH: Enormous obelisks, calling for the same complex engineering skills of the pyramid age were built at Karnak as late as 1295 B.C. A pyramid was also built as Dashur circa 1700 B.C. Bart Jordan, the mathematical child prodigy, to whom Einstein granted special audience, established startling coincidences between Old World and New World pyramids. He agrees with me that "The overwhelming incidence of coincidence argues overwhelmingly against a mere coincidence."
LIE TEN: My critics claim that I have trampled upon the self-respect and self-esteem of native Americans and they have come forward to champion their cause.
THE TRUTH: My people (for I am part Macusi and part African) would be horrified to have, as champions of our cause, De Montellano, Barbour, and Haslip-Viera, who disgrace us with the charge that "native Americans would have sacrificed and eaten the Africans if they came."
thoughts?
[This message has been edited by rasol (edited 18 July 2004).]
In general, those who have insisted that the Olmec Heads have
"negroid" features have not taken the time to look at the area's
Native Americans and how their features correlate with the features
shown on these sculptures; neither have they given much thought
to the idea that the natives could have produced these artworks
themselves.
Even worse, such theories suggest superiority. To suggest that
someone traveled to the New World and created these monuments is to
imply that the natives themselves were not capable of making great
artworks -- that someone had to "make it for them," or at the very
least, "show them how to make it." This is inherently, if not
openly, racist.
This type of theory is directly comparable to racist theories of the
nineteenth century that suggested, for example, that the beautiful Ife
bronze sculptures of Nigeria must have been produced by Greeks visiting
the area (or that Greeks must have shown them how to make them),
because these were so beautifully naturalistic, so different from
the African art found in other areas, and so similar to naturalistic
Greek sculpture. (Archaeological evidence, of course, has proven beyond
a doubt that this was a wholely native Nigerian artform.) This is as
preposterous as suggesting that the European Renaissance artists must
have been SHOWN HOW to paint naturalistically -- that they couldn't
have figured out how to do it themselves, because there wasn't any
evidence of them having done it before.
Some have argued that, since the Olmec Colossal Heads look so very
different from the physiology of Mayan sculptures, the people who
carved them must have been of a different race. Even setting aside the
fact that many "Mayan features" shown on sculptures involved the active
deformation of physiology, this is not a tenable argument; the ancient
peoples of the Gulf Coast were not Mayans -- the Olmec have been shown
to be Mixe-Zoquean, a completely different native group, and there is
no reason to expect them to have Mayan features. Further, the features
represented in the Olmec sculptures -- flat, wide noses and thick,
fleshy lips -- are common to many different Native American cultures,
from the Inuit to the Andeans.
A look at the Native Americans who presently live in the Gulf Coast
area, in fact, reveals striking similarities between these peoples and
the Olmec Heads. There is no reason to believe, from a physiological
standpoint, that the Olmec Heads were not created by these people's
ancestors.
Taking a closer look at these peoples, it is obvious that proponents of
African origin theories have also ignored that the naturalistic Olmec
sculptures show other features that do not exist at all in black African
physiology, but that are common to Native Americans (who trace their
ancestry back to Asians). Most notably, the sculptures have epicanthic
("asian") folds over the eyes, and those that are not shaven have very
straight hair.
Ignoring that these features (fleshy lips, wide noses, epicanthic folds,
and straight hair) are common among many different Native societies
throughout the Americas, some have claimed that this combination of
features indicates a racial mixing of Native Americans with Africans.
Modern-type DNA analysis, however, has so far not shown ANY African
haplotypes among the various Pre-Columbian Amerindian populations
studied.
Finally, there is no concrete archaeological evidence of African
cultures in the New World in Pre-Columbian times -- no imported
animals or plants, no imported artifacts, no imported techniques,
not even any imported materials from which native objects may have
been made. In fact, there is no known black African culture that
produced colossal, naturalistic stone sculptures like the Olmec
Heads.
There is, however, overwhelming archaeological evidence that the
Olmec Colossal Heads were made by and for Native Americans.
In short, those who have claimed the Olmec Colossal Heads to be
of foreign origin have only noticed some superficial physical
similarities with groups of people on the other side of the ocean,
and without any concrete evidence for support, they have given
the credit for these works to far-away foreign cultures. This is
both academically irresponsible and unfair to the cultures that
truly produced them.
Billie Follensbee
The following post was originally written in response to comments made on
the newsgroup sci.archaeology.mesoamerican concerning the Olmecs.
Assertions had been made that the Olmecs were the "First Americans" and
were descended from Africans. The evidence for these assertions included
"negroid" facial features and curly hair on the Olmec colossal heads...
-----------------------
I don't want to spend a lot of time dealing with the same debate that has
dominated this newsgroup for so long, but a few "facts" must be corrected.
1) The first americans were Asians, not Africans. They arrived via the
land bridge between North America and Asia at a point in time that is
justifiably under debate right now. Such phenotypic traits as the
epicanthic folds depicted in Olmec colossal heads seem to substantiate the
fact that the Olmec people were descendants of those earlier cultures that
crossed from Asia. There is also growing archaeological evidence tracing
the evolution of Olmec material culture from their cultural antecedents
during the Archaic period to their florescence in the Formative Period.
What we are debating when we discuss the rise of the Olmecs is not the
peopling of the Americas, but the rise of complex society (something beyond
an egalitarian hamlet) in Mesoamerica.
2) Describing the Olmec colossal heads as "negroid", as many scholars have,
is a subjective statement. The fact is that without the artistic
interpretation of the collosal heads, there is no evidence of contact
between Africans and Mesoamericans in the formative period (or any other
period up until the conquest, but that is beyond the scope of this
discussion). And yes, there are Native Americans with facial features like
the Olmec heads. Plate 1 of "Mexico South: the Isthmus of Tehuantepec" by
Miguel Covarrubias includes a picture of a person indigenous to the Gulf
Coast next to a picture of a colossal head. These features are seen among
many local populations, as has been stated by those who work there.
3) Some participants on this newsgroup have made a good point about the
dangers of equating an archaeological culture with a race. But note that
when Follensbee mentioned that there was ample evidence that the carvings
were made by Native Americans and for Native Americans, she was absolutely
correct. The ceramic evidence may not tell us what language a population
spoke, or whether they were racially different than any other. But the
ceramic evidence, stratigraphic evidence, and even the interpretation of
their symbols and art, have proven that the people who carved the colossal
heads were the same people who had been living in or near the region for
centuries.
4) I would agree with some participants in this discussion that the
argument concerning straight or curly hair on the colossal heads is
ridiculous, but for different reasons. I simply believe establishing a
culture's race based on the appearance of their hair in a sculpture is as
tenuous as basing it on the appearance of their nose, lips or eyes. The
archaeological data has much more to say on this issue than any one trait
on a sculpture.
5) Some scholars used to think that the Olmec were the "Mother Culture" of
Mesoamerica because the art styles of later cultures such as the Maya seem
to have had their roots in the Early Formative/Preclassic period. This
concept has undergone radical change recently. In 1989 the top Olmec
specialists got together and published "Regional Perspectives on the Olmec"
(Sharer and Grove, Cambridge University Press). This volume represented a
change in ideology concerning the "mother culture". It discussed how MANY
areas of Mesoamerica developed simultaneously, with different regions
making different technological and social innovations. Lime plaster was
earliest in Oaxaca (it would eventually revolutionize Mesoamerican
architecture), temple mounds may be earliest on the Pacific Coast (see
Gareth Lowe's work at the site of Paso de Amada), and the Gulf Coast (the
only area which should be given the term "Olmec") can boast its grand
monolithic carvings. No one culture can any longer be called a "mother
culture" in Mesoamerica. Some scholars will still use the term "mother
culture" when describing the Olmec, but they will generally be refering to
the impact of the horizon-style of "Olmec" art. Traces of this art style
can be found from highland central Mexico to Honduras and El Salvador
during the Early and Middle Formative/Preclassic periods.
I would encourage everyone interested in this debate to first read up on
the current status of Olmec archaeology before coming up with theories on
their own. The Sharer and Grove volume is invaluable in this respect.
Flannery and Marcus's concluding chapter of "Early Formative Pottery from
the Valley of Oaxaca" is also short, easy to read and very up-to-date.
These and other bibliographic references are listed below. When reading
the earlier works, simply keep in mind that the archaeological record
concerning the Olmecs has grown considerably within the past few years.
With Rebecca Gonzalez Lauck's work at La Venta, and Ann Cyphers' work at
San Lorenzo, we can look forward to much more revealing volumes on the
current state of Olmec research in the near future.
David R. Hixson
Dept. of Anthropology
Public Service Archaeology Program
University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
dhixson@staff.uiuc.edu
Benson, Elizabeth P. (ed.)
1968 Dumbarton Oaks Conference on the Olmec. Dumbarton Oaks, Washington D.C.
1981 The Olmec and Their Neighbors: Essays in memory of Matthew W.
Stirling. Dumbarton Oaks, Washington D.C.
Bernal, Ignacio
1969 The Olmec World. University of California Press, Berkeley.
Coe, Michael D.
1968 America's First Civilization: Discovering the Olmec. American
Heritage Publishing Co., New York.
Coe, Michael D. and Richard A. Diehl
1980 In the Land of the Olmec. University of Texas Press (2 vols.), Austin.
Covarrubias, Miguel
1957 Indian art of Mexico and Central America. Alfred A. Knopf, New York.
Flannery, Kent V. and Joyce Marcus
1994 Early Formative Pottery from the Valley of Oaxaca. Memoirs of the
Museum of Anthropology no. 27, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor.
Grove, David C.
1997 "Olmec Archaeology: A Half-Century of Research and its
Accomplishments."
Journal of World Archaeology 11 (1). (March 1997)
1987 Ancient Chalcatzingo. University of Texas Press, Austin.
1984 Chalcatzingo: Excavations on the Olmec Frontier. Thames and
Hudson, New York and London.
Pińa Chan, Roman
1989 The Olmec: Mother Culture of Mesoamerica. Rizzoli, New York.
Sharer, Robert and David C. Grove (eds.)
1989 Regional Perspectives on the Olmec. Cambridge University Press,
Cambridge.
Wicke, Charles R.
1971 Olmec: An Early Art Style in Precolumbian Mexico. University of
Arizona Press, Tucson.
Various Authors
1995 Los Olmecas (Spanish version), Arqueología Mexicana, vol. II, núm.
12, March-April. Editorial Raíces, México.
1996 Olmecs (English version), Arqueología Mexicana, Special Edition.
Editorial Raíces, México.
* Peter Underhill's claim that Maya have pre Columbian African Y chromosome?
* the Africoid skeletons (including unusual features such as prognothesism) found among the Olmec by Dr. Andrzej Wiercinski?
* Leo Wiener's and others claims that the Olmec language and writing system is closely related to Mande NW African?
I'm hoping for some actual personal opinion, as well as the cut & paste info. (which I also appreciate).
Black people are trying to decieve us.... This is deception and trickery!
Regarding the Olmec heads, black people (those who even care) are involved in speculation, based on the peculiar features of the heads... "Deception and trickery" are strong words. Even your post quotes "This theory has spread widely in the African-American community..."
Whether Van Sertima is on target or off base is no reflection on black people. To consider it such suggests the motives behind your arguments to be something other than getting at the truth...
If we place an Indigenous picture next to the Olmec head we without a doubt can prove that we look the same as the Olmecs and therefore indigenous people are Olmec.
It would be interesting to see such a picture. Could you link to some?
You have black males shaving their African hair or wearing hats so they don't show their distinction from other people.
Black men have been shaving their heads since time immemorial. African tribesmen shaved their heads, many Kemetans shaved their heads, people in other cultures shaved their heads (including some guys you know). Modern africans shave their heads. ...To fit in with who??
(...and "wearing hats"? 
)
It's "racist" to think you know others so well as to be so sure of their motives like that (unless you've heard a helluva lot of black guys state that this is the reason they shave their heads??)
(...and wear hats... )
What's more, bad guesses as to someone's motives are more often a clue to the values of the person *judging* rather than the one in the spotlight...
You have black women straightening their hair trying to look indigenous.
Sure, even the ones in Africa! (They must've seen pictures of indigenous people... )
--
In fact, there is no known black African culture that produced colossal, naturalistic stone sculptures like the Olmec
Heads.
That's a whole other argument. (Jeesh!)
--
Even worse, such theories suggest superiority. To suggest that
someone traveled to the New World and created these monuments is to
imply that the natives themselves were not capable of making great
artworks -- that someone had to "make it for them," or at the very
least, "show them how to make it." This is inherently, if not
openly, racist.
...Yet you aren't troubled by the fact that everyone thinks there had to have been a "land bridge" to get you to the americas,(an idea now in controversy, I think) -- while other folks had the brains & will to come by sea?
---
By the way, good posts, Rasol. I can't say whether I believe that there was contact or not, but I do know it's an interesting topic...
I try to keep an open mind, which is why I'd definitely be interested in seeing those pictures, XicanConnection...
(...and while you're at it, tell me what's a "malinche" & I'll tell you if I've ever slept with one... )
[This message has been edited by sunstorm2004 (edited 18 July 2004).]
Here's a photo of those indigenuos Aztec type that you can barely distinguish from the Ohlmec Heads. I mean the flat nose and thich everted lips is the dead give away don't cha think?
Yep these are the people, Van Sertima is trying to trick to looking like Africans alright, flat noses, everted lips and all.
If anyone has used trickery its your Spanish masters that have "brainwashed' you to think they were the FIRST to use boats, and the FIRST to realize the world was round enough to find the new world, never mind, Columbus thought he was entering India from the West, as if no one has ever taken this route before the Europeans. But its okay , you can bow to your Spanish masters, they know everything, Afrocentric scholars don't.
(I'm being sasrcastic, in case anyone feels the need to attack me- bring it on)
Reference to Johannessen, Carl L. Professor Emeritus of Geography, University of Oregon, field research in Latin America and Asia, crops plants and Chicken.
"The Idea of Elephants Diffused Early to the Americas: Elephant images are found in sculpturess and in writings in Mexico, Belize, Honduras, and Guatemala. The oldest elephant head was sculptured on top of a human form during the age of the Olmec culture and found in the Huasteca of Mexico, who speak a Mayan language. The most complete elephant shape is from the Honduran archeological ruin at Copan in Stela B. The elephant's trunk is part of the Rain God Chac (in Mayan) and Tlaloc (in Nahuatle) in Belize. It is found in major concentrations as part of the face of the Rain God in the Puuc region of Yucatan, where they really did need the rains. The trunk curves or recurves in various ways that are elephantine and not of a Macaw as has been sometimes claimed. The Codex shows an elephant, trunk upraised, spouting water that falls as rain for the maize crop."
We've already talked about the elephant sculpture found in the museum, where other Olmec artifacts are kept.
Here is a question for you. How do you suppose people who haven't been to Africa, have come to know about an elephant; something they weren't supposed to be familiar with given the time era involved?
It is not as if in the ancient times, they had access to library books and cameras to know about these animals. Is it not possible that Africans indeed made their way to Americas, and merged with people who were already there? And it seems that not only Africans reached there, but people from Southeast Asia as well. That explains some of the "flat" faces of Olmec heads, while others show a more rounded face with so-called Negroid features.
I figure if the Africans went there and intermingled or lived with populations over there, they may have all played a role in bringing about the unique Olmec culture. Indeed a case has been made that, Olmec scripts have elements similar to that found on the Proto-Saharan monuments and pots. Hieroglyphics of Kemet and the Manding scripts, have also been linked to the Proto-Saharan scripts. This doesn't necessarily mean that Africans reached the Americas and started the civilization there, but it does suggest that they were present there when the civilization was being born.
Did the people already living in America have their own traditions before the advent of African travelers? I am sure they did. But it was perhaps the amalgamation of different cultures or traditions that gave rise to the unique Olmec civilization, incorporating elements from Native American Indians, Africans, and Southeast Asians. As such, their traditions are going to be different from Africans and Asians. That would explain the lack of Olmec heads in Africa. But as you go south of Africa, in modern day Zimbabwe, you'll find Sculptured stone heads of similar size as that of the Olmec heads!
quote:
`Naturally African people don't look indigenous! You have black males shaving their African hair or wearing hats so they don't show their distinction from other people. You have black women straightening their hair trying to look indigenous. Even white women are trying to look indigenous! Look at the commercials of white women selling products to get tans trying to look brown like us! White women are dying their hair black to look like us as well! Its funny that black and white people don't want to give us credit for our civilization that we built independant of them yet they want to be us and look like us! They even like eating our food and sleeping with Malinches yet they call us "Wetbacks!"
No offense dude, but I know hispanics from South America that get mad if you associate them with Mexicans. Your own people don't want to "look like you" in this sense. I used to be ignorant and call all hispanic people Mexican, until a girl from Venezuela, showed me how distinctively different Mexicans looks from other hispanics. In my opinion, Mexicans looks more pure Indian, while the others look more Spaniard. But you won't find THIS African American, wearing any sombrero hats and cowboy boots or dreadful ruffled dresses 'trying to look Mexican'. Do they even reach over 5'9, the men that is? I've personally never seen one.
And please look up indigenous, you obviously don't know the definition!!
Ausar, don't reprimand me please... my moons are out of alignment, I'll be okay in a few days.
Any person who studies artwork will tell you that it's hard to make out phenotypes in colossal art work. Can you name a Western African culture contemporary with the Olmecs? The oldest culture in Western Africa I know is Kintampo. The oldest sculpture in western Africa is done by the Nok people.
Remeber the Sahara did not completely dry untill about 4,000 years ago. The ancestors of modern western Africas were living in the Central and Southern Sahara. Later when dried they moved southward which places like Djenne and kintampo were established.
quote:
Originally posted by ausar:
Why do Africans spend so much time trying to find themselves in other people's hsitory instead of appreciating their own. I honestly have not seen any definite proof that Olmecs were Africans. You know that Melanesian types were also found in Pre-Colomubia America so maybe these mixture with other types account for the phenotype of the Olmec heads.
Any person who studies artwork will tell you that it's hard to make out phenotypes in colossal art work. Can you name a Western African culture contemporary with the Olmecs? The oldest culture in Western Africa I know is Kintampo. The oldest sculpture in western Africa is done by the Nok people.
Remeber the Sahara did not completely dry untill about 4,000 years ago. The ancestors of modern western Africas were living in the Central and Southern Sahara. Later when dried they moved southward which places like Djenne and kintampo were established.
Have you read my post, just before Homeylu's post. I could care less about the Olmec civilization, because frankly it doesn't connect to me. All I am saying is that Africans must have found their way there. Just because I say this, doesn't mean that I want to claim Olmec civilization. It is simply from archeological findings I mentioned earlier, that have brought me to the conclusion that Africans must have found their way to Americas. I have posted my explanation as to why Olmec heads aren't found in West Africa, but yet you keeping asking the same question over and over again. For once, can someone answer (instead of dodging it)why elephants, not found in the Americas, found their way to ancient American and Olmec sculptures! Can someone also disprove the connection between elements of Olmec scripts and those found in Proto-Saharan region? Like I said time and again, Africans may have found their way to Americas and joined populations that were already there. There may even have been a rudimentary civilization already there, but a blend of people of various cultures may have given rise to the civilization that came to be known as Olmec civilization. Civilizations don't just sprout from nowhere! Why didn't the Olmec civilization occur much earlier? But it seems to me the blending of cultures (Native Indian, African and Southeast Asian), as I stated earlier, must have given rise to the Olmec civilization. Whether Africans had anything to do with the Olmec civilization is debatable, but why should that mean that they never made their way over there? The Europeans made their way to Kemet, but that doesn't mean that Kemet is European produced civilization. The same can be said of Africans in the Americans; making their way to America doesn't imply that they started the civilization there. But naturally, if they blended into the society there, they would have contributed to the cultural "richness" of that society.
[This message has been edited by supercar (edited 19 July 2004).]
Why do Africans spend so much time trying to find themselves in other people's hsitory instead of appreciating their own.
Keep in mind though, Africans aren't the only ones "guilty" of this (speculating about early contact with early civilizations).
A few years ago I watched a slick show (on Discovery Channel I think) which suggested, based on the finding of a single skull with "European" features in central america, that the earliest inhabitants of mesoamerica were caucasians (who, of course, came by sea). These caucasians were then displaced by the indian types.
Another show suggested, based on the finding of a mummy with red hair in China, that early caucasians help found Chinese civilization!
...And these are well-funded, widely distributed shows getting those ideas out there. If blacks did the same, imagine the uproar!
---
I think it's important to keep an open mind & hear out ideas like those Van Sertima propose, if only because so many lies have been told for so long about africans having done nothing & been nowhere. If we can entertain those old ideas, we can certainly entertain ideas that refute them.
I think it's important not to jump to conclusions based on scant evidence, but if there's intriguing evidence at all, it's important to look further...
[This message has been edited by sunstorm2004 (edited 19 July 2004).]
quote:
Originally posted by trexmaster:
About the elephant vase...maybe it's supposed to be a mammoth or mastodon (they WERE around ancient Mesoamerica)? Or perhaps a mouse?
My friend, mammoths had long gone before the time era we are talking about. The sculpture you are talking about doesn't have any representation of fur either. I have never seen any civilization use "mice" as symbolic sculptures. I have already mentioned various elephant sculptures of the Ancient Americans. I have also stated the symbolic nature of these sculptures. I have yet to hear anyone give an explanation for these sculptures created by people who have never seen such an animal!
[This message has been edited by supercar (edited 19 July 2004).]
Prof Alexander von Wuthenau, the German-born art historian, author of Unexplained Faces in Ancient America, and chairman of the Pre-Columbian Art History of the University of the Americas, has also made an impressive collection of pre-Columbian terra cotta sculptures of African chiefs, priests, dancers and drummers.
Indeed at one point, after stating his conviction of the trans Atlantic voyage of the Africans, Prof Wuthenau was advised by his colleague, Dr Erwin Palm, thus: “Wuthenau, never say Negro, always say Negroid because then it would mean that the black specimens in pre-Columbian art are derived from Melanesian Negritos and not from African Negroes.”
Wuthenau subsequently explained that his colleague meant well and “probably intended to help me maintain my respectability in academic circles; because orthodox scientists are beginning to admit the possibility of Melanesian migration to America but are deadly opposed to that of contacts from Africa across the Atlantic."
This is why you always have to be suspicious and form your own opinion. This perception of Black Africans is out and some Professionals will do what they need to to hide what the truth may be:
“Wuthenau, never say Negro, always say Negroid because then it would mean that the black specimens in pre-Columbian art are derived from Melanesian Negritos and not from African Negroes.” .......orthodox scientists are beginning to admit the possibility of Melanesian migration to America but are deadly opposed to that of contacts from Africa across the Atlantic."
What is this all about? Is this Objective??
To me this is the "anything but Black African" kind of thinking we have observed for theories regarding KMT, Great Zimababwe and Timbuktu to name but a few.
I am not claiming the Olmec culture......just that they were there in some capacity obviously as friends not invaders. The collection of evidence is indisputable. Much of the research is not done by Blacks, what reason would Whites have to say that Africans were present here.
The Africoid skeletons are not being disputed because they can't be....just ignored or explained away as something other than Black African of course.
How much more evidence is needed....the cultural elements point to Africa....not melanasia....u guys can wait for the mexican Gov't to admit that, just like u can wait for the Egyptian Govt' to admit
that Ancient KMTians were black.
None of those two statements from those Govt's are going to be forthcoming anytime soon....u guys need that kind of Validation go ahead and keep waiting, pack a lunch while u are at it because it's going to be a while.
[This message has been edited by Obenga (edited 19 July 2004).]
quote:
Originally posted by ausar:
Why do Africans spend so much time trying to find themselves in other people's hsitory instead of appreciating their own.
The question is tautological. It assumes one shares your definition of African history.
Remember, by some Eurocentric standards Africa has no history.
Egypt is but an extention of Mesopotamia; Ethiopia an extention of Egypt.
West African kingdoms are either Arab colonies, or Berber migrations. Swahilli Zanj and South African Zimbabwe are ancient semitic states. What history?
The point is what does or does not constitute "African" history is not clearly bounded. It seems to me that it is the job of African historians to search for those boundaries, not simply accept without question, Eurocentric constricted notions of African history.
quote:
Originally posted by trexmaster:
About the elephant vase...maybe it's supposed to be a mammoth or mastodon (they WERE around ancient Mesoamerica)? Or perhaps a mouse?
quote:
Posted by ausur:
Originally posted by ausar:
Why do Africans spend so much time trying to find themselves in other people's hsitory instead of appreciating their own.
I hate being repetitive, but I have to stress that Africans have enough civilizations to be concerned about bolstering their image by claiming other civilizations. That is besides the point! The point is that archeological findings, such as elephant sculptures and scripts with elements similar to the Proto-Saharan script, have been brought to light.
I find it weird that people can actually believe Melanesians who are much further away from Americas than Africans, can travel all that distance, overcoming oceans and land mases (Africa and Europe) and finally find their way to America and settle there. The same people who have no hard time making such claims, also never bring up the subject of Melanesians having Olmec head type of sculptures in their Asian homeland. But when it comes to black Africans, somehow all possibilities are thrown out of the window. Africans are much closer to the Americas, only being seperated by water bodies. If Melanesians can travel from as far as Southeast Asia just to get to America, why can't Africans who are much closer to America, be able to do the same?
There is no sign of Olmec heads in Melanesia or their Asian homeland, but that question constantly comes up when dealing with Africans, that somehow Olmec heads have to be found in Africa to prove the connection.
If the Africans went to another society with different cultures and groups, they are going to adopt some new cultures along side their traditional ones. As such, a "melting pot" of communities of people of different cultures are likely to evolve into new societies. This would explain the unique nature of the Olmec society, and its sculptures! There would still be some signs of African presence through art form, such as the elephant sculptures, and elements of Olmec scripts.
FIG. 10. Woman from Olmec area. (Photo Donald Corddry, reprinted from Bernal [1968].)
FIG. 11. Tzotzil from Chiapas. (Photo B Reyes, reprinted from Morley [1947].)
Van Sertima (1992b, 1995) places great emphasis on Tres Zapotes head 2 (also known as the Nestepe or Tuxtla head) because it has seven braids dangling from the back, which he claims (1992c:57; 1994:296, fig. 1c), citing no supporting evidence, to be a characteristically Ethiopian hairstyle. He also asserts that the braids are "probably the best hidden secret in Mesoamerican archaeology" (1992b:37), that the "head was never published outside of Mexico" (1992a:7), and that "this photograph was kept in the dark (and I think the blackout was deliberate)" (1992b:38; 1995:74). To support his claim (1992c:37; 1995:74) he quotes the Mexican Olmec scholar Beatriz de la Fuente, who states, "If at any time, one could imagine that there were Negroes in Mesoamerica, it would be after seeing Head 2 of Tres Zapotes, the one that is most removed from the physiognomy of our Indian ancestors" (de la Fuente 1971:58,). However, he overlooks her comment on the next page that "certainly the colossal heads do not represent individuals of the Negro or Ethiopian race as José Melgar, the first Westerner to see one more than a hundred years ago, supposed. We have to agree that in them are recorded, on a heroic scale, the ethnic characteristics of the ancient inhabitants of Mesoamerica, characteristics that are still preserved in some contemporaneous natives" (de la Fuente 1971:59, our translation).
P.S. Homeylu,The Mejica(Aztecs) are not direct decendants of the Olmecs.
[This message has been edited by XicanConnection (edited 19 July 2004).]
quote:
This carving of an elephant was found among Olmec artifacts. Where would an Olmec have knowledge of an Elephant from??
So what you are implying is that the Amerindians did not hunt the American Mastodons who have been proven that before their extinction also roamed central Mexico??
If you convincingly answer all this, then you may be onto something. If however, you come to the conclusion that they must have got their ideas from Asians, then it follows that it is possible some Africans found their way to America. Some of the photos of Olmec sculptures I have used as reference on this thread earlier, show people with Afro hair. Do present decendants have Afro style hair? You also have to look at some sculptures with marks on their faces, do modern day decendants of Olmecs have those facial markings? But hey, we cannot simply jump to conclusions with such sculptures. Try and answer the first two questions about Olmec sculpture, and from there we will be getting somewhere.
I mentioned this in a previous post, because it is something people tend to overlook. So here goes again!
Here is what I found on the web:
Reference to Johannessen, Carl L. Professor Emeritus of Geography, University of Oregon, field research in Latin America and Asia, crops plants and Chicken.
"The Idea of Elephants Diffused Early to the Americas: Elephant images are found in sculpturess and in writings in Mexico, Belize, Honduras, and Guatemala. The oldest elephant head was sculptured on top of a human form during the age of the Olmec culture and found in the Huasteca of Mexico, who speak a Mayan language. The most complete elephant shape is from the Honduran archeological ruin at Copan in Stela B. The elephant's trunk is part of the Rain God Chac (in Mayan) and Tlaloc (in Nahuatle) in Belize. It is found in major concentrations as part of the face of the Rain God in the Puuc region of Yucatan, where they really did need the rains. The trunk curves or recurves in various ways that are elephantine and not of a Macaw as has been sometimes claimed. The Codex shows an elephant, trunk upraised, spouting water that falls as rain for the maize crop."
We've already talked about the elephant sculpture found in the museum, where other Olmec artifacts are kept.
[This message has been edited by supercar (edited 19 July 2004).]
quote:
Originally posted by XicanConnection:
So what you are implying is that the Amerindians did not hunt the American Mastodons who have been proven that before their extinction also roamed central Mexico??
Here's a picture representing early American's hunting Mastadons: http://encarta.msn.com/media_461543877_761555928_-1_1/Mastodon_Hunt.html
Of course, the Mastodon had been extinct for at least 10,000 years before the artifacts were made.
If the idea is that a memory of an extinct creature had been passed down from generation to generation by the way of artform....you'd think that there'd be a history of such art from 8, 6, and 4,000 BC.
Not just during the Olmec period around 1,500BC?
quote:
Originally posted by rasol:
Here's a picture representing early American's hunting Mastadons: http://encarta.msn.com/media_461543877_761555928_-1_1/Mastodon_Hunt.htmlOf course, the Mastodon had been extinct for at least 10,000 years before the artifacts were made.
If the idea is that a memory of an extinct creature had been passed down from generation to generation by the way of artform....you'd think that there'd be a history of such art from 8, 6, and 4,000 BC.
Not just during the Olmec period around 1,500BC?
Good observation rasol!
quote:
Explain how, various letters of Olmec script closely ressemble those found on the Proto-Saharan artifacts!
The linguistic arguments seems to be mixing up two different claims. On the other hand, the argument of numerous correspondences of words is an argument for a genetic relationship between Olmecs and Mande. However, as I'll quote below, random correspondences- no matter how many-- are not probative of genetic relationships. The usual methods used by linguists are either or both 1) a systematic comparison of standard 100 or 200 word lists of words that tend to last a long time compiled by Swadesh; 2) a comparison of similar grammatical structures (systems of pronouns, agglutination, subject -verb orders, declensions, etc..
The followig from a standard textbook on historical linguistics
R. L. Trask. 1996. Historical Linguistics. London: Arnold.
p. 219-222. [Problems in identifying genetic resemblances-- borrowing]
[Urdu, Swahili, Turkish, Arabic similarities-- due to prestige of Arabic] In this case, the borrowing took place in historical times, and it is trivial matter to identify these numerous loan words and to exclude them from consideration. But loan words are not always so easy to identify. There is no reason to doubt that the borrowing of words has been going on for as long as human beings have had two different languages to speak. Hence, some loan words have been present in the borrowing languages so long that they are almost indistinguishable from native words. Identifying such ancient loans is thus a crucial issue: if we inadvertently accept several dozen ancient loans as native words, we may be fatally misled into seeing a genetic link where none exists.
p. 220. The best way of coping with this problem, when searching for possible genetic links, is to confine ourselves to what I called basic vocabulary in Chapter 2: pronouns, grammatical words, body-part names, the lower numerals, and other high frequency items which are not often borrowed, while words like ‘news’, ‘book’, and ‘service’ are far more likely to be borrowed. Hence, if we can’t find any evidence of a genetic link when comparing the basic vocabularies of two candidate languages, we should be rather suspicious if we then stumble across apparent ‘cognates’ with meanings like ‘chariot’, ‘caterpillar’, ‘stocking’, or ‘bronze’: they might very well be ancient loans.
There is another potential pitfall, which looks innocuous at first glance. But which has in practice often produced monumental confusion among linguists who were not sufficiently aware. ... Table 8.13
Hawaiian.....ancient Greek
Well, sorry, but they are wrong. Every language has thousands of meanings to provide forms for , and only a small number of speech-sounds to construct these forms, and hence, by the ordinary laws of probability, any arbitrary languages will always exhibit a number of such coincidences-- maybe only eight or ten, maybe dozens, depending chiefly on how similar their phonologies are and how willing you are to accept some pair of words as similar.
...
There are two things you can do. First, we can insist on systematic correspondences and deny the value of mere resemblances. This is what most historical linguists do: aware that mere resemblances can always be the result of chance, they assign full weight only to systematic correspondences, which (once loan words have been excluded) can result only from a genetic relationship. Second, we can apply statistical tests to our data.. To see whether we have anything more than we would expect by chance alone. Both of these are good policies. But, whatever we do, we must not allow ourselves to be persuaded that a mere list of arbitrary and unsystematic resemblances, however long, by itself constitutes persuasive evidence of anything. It is sad to report that a number of linguists have failed to grasp this elementary point and have as a result squandered their careers in collecting lists of resemblances among whichever languages have caught their eye (always with success, or course). They have proudly announced their ‘findings’ and declared them to be evidence of an ancient link between the languages they are looking at, and they are baffled and hurt when no one pays attention.
quote:
Of course, the Mastodon had been extinct for at least 10,000 years before the artifacts were made.If the idea is that a memory of an extinct creature had been passed down from generation to generation by the way of artform....you'd think that there'd be a history of such art from 8, 6, and 4,000 BC.
Not just during the Olmec period around 1,500BC?
Interestingly, elephants were originally indigenous to North America, but the Bering Ithsmus during the Ice Age gave them the opportunity to migrate to Europe, Asia, and Africa. The mammoths and mastodons that remained in North America would eventually perish as the immigrant humans hunted them to extinction. In Mesoamerica, these humans would be classified as Texpapan Man, who settled into the region by 10,000 B.P. Mastodons would not become extinct until 8,000 B.P. - nearly four thousand years after their extinction north of Mesoamerica.
So, yes the possibility of the memory of elephants beign past down generation to generation does excist.
quote:
Originally posted by XicanConnection:
Interestingly, elephants were originally indigenous to North America, but the Bering Ithsmus during the Ice Age gave them the opportunity to migrate to Europe, Asia, and Africa. The mammoths and mastodons that remained in North America would eventually perish as the immigrant humans hunted them to extinction. In Mesoamerica, these humans would be classified as Texpapan Man, who settled into the region by 10,000 B.P. Mastodons would not become extinct until 8,000 B.P. - nearly four thousand years after their extinction north of Mesoamerica.So, yes the possibility of the memory of elephants beign past down generation to generation does excist.
You didn't account for the fact that artifacts and artwork of these didn't exist in the many thousand years preceding the Olmec civilization.Did they forget to represent these creatures in their artifacts right before the Olmec culture?
Why did elephant depictions just start to appear with the advent of that civilization?
Besides, If the elephants could travel to Africa and people hunted for them during era you described, why are they still in Africa and Asia. Surely some elephants would have still existed in parts of America! Native Americans had hunted bisons daily for food and other stuff, but bisons are still present in America. At any rate, if the ancestors of Olmecs were aware of such animal, they would have been represented in the artwork in the years preceeding the Olmec culture! Evidence of such artwork hasn't been found.
[This message has been edited by supercar (edited 19 July 2004).]
Our time should be more focused on these claims instead of trying to impose ourselves upon other minority groups historical claims that have also been minimized by Eurocentrics.
Let me also point out in the case of China those finding of Tocharin mummies in the desert does not prove caucasians founded Chinese civlization. All it really proves is cultural interaction was before what was expected. You have people making presumptions without consulting evidence for their claims.
Know I think that Xian connection should also jump on eurocentrics who claim Kennewick man was caucasian. There is no grounds to this theory since Kennwick man has been found to be related to the Aniu people in Japan.
I do believe African and Meso-American contact is pluasible but not from Egypt or Nubia. The most plausible claim I have heard come from Medevil Mali from a person named Abu Bakari II that is well documented by a Syrian historian named Al-Omari from Cairo.
quote:
Originally posted by XicanConnection:
[B] Interestingly, elephants were originally indigenous to North America, but the Bering Ithsmus during the Ice Age gave them the opportunity to migrate to Europe, Asia, and Africa.
You are probably confusing the elephant with the horse. The ancestors of the horse are indigenous to the Western Hemisphere.
The Elephant, including the common descedent of the Mammoth and Mastodon (paleomastodon) evolved in Africa and spread to Asia and the Americas from there: http://elephant.elehost.com/About_Elephants/Stories/Evolution/evolution.html
I'm not sure how many archeologists would argue for the viability of the theory that the Mastadon is somehow "remembered" thousands of years after it is extinct, when there is no record to support such "memory".
quote:
Originally posted by rasol:
You are probably confusing the elephant with the horse. The ancestors of the horse are indigenous to the Western Hemisphere.The Elephant, including the common descedent of the Mammoth and Mastodon (paleomastodon) evolved in Africa and spread to Asia and the Americas from there: http://elephant.elehost.com/About_Elephants/Stories/Evolution/evolution.html
I'm not sure how many archeologists would argue for the viability of the theory that the Mastadon is somehow "remembered" thousands of years after it is extinct, when there is no record to support such "memory".
Notice how Xicanconnection carefully dodged your question regarding the preceeding years unaccounted for the lack of elephant artwork? Instead he simply moves onto the statement that one generation would have passed on the information to the succeeding generation.
quote:
Originally posted by ausar:
[B]Rasoul,many modern African archaeologist have overturned centuries of Eurocentric infringement upon legitmate African civlization.
You seem to be implying that it is illigitimate to theorize on possible contact between Africa and North America because that is outside what you consider the acceptable boundary of African history? That is another way of constricting African history.
quote:
Nobody honestly sees Swahili states nor Timbuktu as Arab colonies.
quote:
Recent archaeological findings also refute the notion that iron metalurgy flowed from Meroe or Carthage to Western Africa. Please keep up to date on recent archaeological findings.
Recent archeological findings also demonstrate that early and predyanastic Kemetian populations were Black Africans who migrated from the South to the North, and from Kush to Kemet. But that does not stop so called "historians" from continuing to falsify the record.
quote:
Our time should be more focused on these claims
quote:
instead of trying to impose ourselves upon other minority groups historical claims that have also been minimized by Eurocentrics.
You are not arguing that they did or did not, as a fact of history.
You are offering an ideological objection, that is every bit as bad as Eurocentric historians who ideologically object to the notion of the Kemmau being Black, and the country being African.
quote:
I do believe African and Meso-American contact is pluasible but not from Egypt or Nubia. The most plausible claim I have heard come from Medevil Mali from a person named Abu Bakari II that is well documented by a Syrian historian named Al-Omari from Cairo.
quote:
Originally posted by rasol:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by ausar:
[B]Rasoul,many modern African archaeologist have overturned centuries of Eurocentric infringement upon legitmate African civlization.
You seem to be implying that it is illigitimate to theorize on possible contact between Africa and North America because that is outside what you consider the acceptable boundary of African history? That is another way of constricting African history.
quote:
Nobody honestly sees Swahili states nor Timbuktu as Arab colonies.
quote:
Recent archaeological findings also refute the notion that iron metalurgy flowed from Meroe or Carthage to Western Africa. Please keep up to date on recent archaeological findings.
Recent archeological findings also demonstrate that early and predyanastic Kemetian populations were Black Africans who migrated from the South to the North, and from Kush to Kemet. But that does not stop so called "historians" from continuing to falsify the record.
quote:
Our time should be more focused on these claims
quote:
instead of trying to impose ourselves upon other minority groups historical claims that have also been minimized by Eurocentrics.
You are not arguing that they did or did not, as a fact of history.
You are offering an ideological objection, that is every bit as bad as Eurocentric historians who ideologically object to the notion of the Kemmau being Black, and the country being African.
quote:
I do believe African and Meso-American contact is pluasible but not from Egypt or Nubia. The most plausible claim I have heard come from Medevil Mali from a person named Abu Bakari II that is well documented by a Syrian historian named Al-Omari from Cairo.
Wow, you've hit the nail on the head!
quote:
Originally posted by Rasol
You seem to be implying that it is illigitimate to theorize on possible contact between Africa and North America because that is outside what you consider the acceptable boundary of African history? That is another way of constricting African history.
Ausar and a few others are good at doing this! I've debated with them before on this issue, they all cling to the idea that the only way Africans left Africa was through slavery. They are quite comfortable theorizing any "negroid" skulls found outside of Africa as belonging to slaves, or finding other ways to minimize their importance. Thank god for people like you
who can check them on this
1) Who says all mammoths and mastodons had fur? And some more surreal statutes of undoubtably furry animals like bears aren't sculpted with fur. Do a Yahoo! image search.
2) Who says mastodons and mammoths were already extinct at the time?
EDIT: Says here that elephants were probably going extinct in the Americas rather recently, up to around 1 CE (that Mayan Codex showing the elephant was probably a piece of paleoart, identical to pictures depicting mammoths today):
http://www.jrmooneyham.com/pamer2ref.html#section24
[This message has been edited by trexmaster (edited 19 July 2004).]
[This message has been edited by trexmaster (edited 19 July 2004).]
quote:
2) Who says mastodons and mammoths were already extinct at the time?
They died out 10,000 years ago according to the fossil record, along with a number of either large ice age mammals. http://www.mnh.si.edu/museum/VirtualTour/Tour/First/IceAge/ice4.html http://www.scsc.k12.ar.us/2000backeast/ENatHist/Members/SchullerL/Default.htm
Note that the Mayan elephant motif depicts the animal with small ears, as opposed to African elephants' big ears.
quote:
Originally posted by homeylu:
Ausar and a few others are good at doing this! I've debated with them before on this issue, they all cling to the idea that the only way Africans left Africa was through slavery.
Ausar is very knowledgeable and a good guy.
I just think he underestimates the degree to which the root premise of all historical discourse has been poisoned by the underlying supremacist ideology of Europe.
It is only natural to absorb such ideas to the point where you assume that it is "out of place" for an African to view himself as an explorer, a migrant, and agent of history having mutual relationships with other non European peoples in which Europe is simply...irrelavent.
And there is also a natural tendency to be cowed by the expectant Eurocentric backlash and so submit to them by way of compromise.
We all, as African people, inherit the baggage of mental bondage to European imperialism, and freeing yourself of it, takes constant effort.
quote:
Originally posted by trexmaster:
[q]My friend, mammoths had long gone before the time era we are talking about. The sculpture you are talking about doesn't have any representation of fur either. I have never seen any civilization use "mice" as symbolic sculptures. I have already mentioned various elephant sculptures of the Ancient Americans. I have also stated the symbolic nature of these sculptures. I have yet to hear anyone give an explanation for these sculptures created by people who have never seen such an animal![/q]1) Who says all mammoths and mastodons had fur? And some more surreal statutes of undoubtably furry animals like bears aren't sculpted with fur. Do a Yahoo! image search.
Have you seen any record of mammoths without fur. In the environment which they lived, they had to have fur. If you have any historical and scientifically backed reference of a furless mammoth, you are certainly welcome to share it with us!
Anyway, as the links I provided show, the commonly-believed idea that elephants became extinct 10,000 BCE is probably outdated. I'm particularly interested in the anecdote about Thomas Jefferson learning of elephants roaming the Midwest from Native Americans.
[This message has been edited by trexmaster (edited 19 July 2004).]
quote:
Originally posted by trexmaster:
For those of you who believe that the "elephant" art proves an African connection:
http://www.science-frontiers.com/sf068/sf068b07.htmNote that the Mayan elephant motif depicts the animal with small ears, as opposed to African elephants' big ears.
Good link, and food for thought at least.
But careful not to jump at anything you see, by way of: MASTODON FOUND IN FLORIDA, CROCODILES IN NY SUBWAY, and so on.
For instance:
The well known story of the mastodon killed in Ecuador 1500 BC, is considered to be mere folklore by many, if not all naturalists.
Supposedly it was found in the 1920's at the bottom of a landslide, and no one was sure of the date, which still keeps changing.
But paleontologists have continued to claim that the Mastodon died out 10,000 years ago, so they were obviously not impressed.
And of course, this has nothing to do directly with the Olmec. It's just natural history.
Perhaps it will eventually be documented that the Mastodon was a living part of Olmec culture. But that does not seem to be the case at this time.
[This message has been edited by rasol (edited 19 July 2004).]
quote:
Originally posted by trexmaster:
For those of you who believe that the "elephant" art proves an African connection:
http://www.science-frontiers.com/sf068/sf068b07.htmNote that the Mayan elephant motif depicts the animal with small ears, as opposed to African elephants' big ears.
The picture I saw, depicts an elephant with an ear the size almost that of a human. What kind of an elephant is that supposed to be? Don't take every detail of the drawing too seriously as the real representation of the animal. I know that even the Mastodons don't have ears that small!
This reference page you provided, still doesn't answer the question Rasol put forward, as to why elephant artwork hasn't been found dating back to several thousand years before the Olmec civilization. If the Ancient Americans spread folklore about elephants from one generation to another, then surely the artwork would depict this in a progression leading to the Olmec time era!
quote:
Originally posted by trexmaster:
Actually, the woolly mammoths (the kind we know to have fur thanks to frozen bodies and cave paintings) are just ONE kind of mammoths. Who says that other American pachyderms did not shed their fur or have any at all?
[This message has been edited by trexmaster (edited 19 July 2004).]
I like to base history on facts, rather than assumptions. Until I get scientific evidence of a furless mammoth, I'll not view them as such.
quote:
Originally posted by supercar:
This reference page you provided, still doesn't answer the question Rasol put forward, as to why elephant artwork hasn't been found dating back to several thousand years before the Olmec civilization. If the Ancient Americans spread folklore about elephants from one generation to another, then surely the artwork would depict this in a progression leading to the Olmec time era!
The comment about the lack of artifacts depicting elephants before the Olmecs implies a rather recent revolution in Olmec art rather than knowledge about elephants. rasol's statement implies that artwork depicting mammoths has not been found in Mesoamerica, yet we know they hunted mammoths during the Paleolithic days.
[This message has been edited by trexmaster (edited 19 July 2004).]
[This message has been edited by trexmaster (edited 19 July 2004).]
[This message has been edited by trexmaster (edited 19 July 2004).]
quote:
I don't know. Some say you can make a better argument for Islamic African civilizations being Arabic/Semitic/Meditteranian than you can for Ancient Kemet. While others say that virtually all arguments to the effect that Timbuktu, Swahili or Kemet are anything other than Black African, are equally disingenuous and tactically identical.
The trading communities in the Swahili already existed prior to contact with Arabs. The region was known as Rhapta which was noted for the sewn plank vessels also mentioned in Greco-Roman text Periplus of the Eretreyan Sea. The people who founded these trading networkd were migrating Bantu. The sewn plank vessels according to archaeologist Mark Horton look noting like dhows. The house architecture of the Swahili people probabaly came from coral architecture used by Cushic people from Eastern Africa.
Not to mention Swahili is mostly Bantu with some Arabic and Persian loan words.
An Eastern African archaeologist named Felix Chami has overturned myths that Arabs created Swahili civlization. What little Arabs came in adapted to the culture and became Swahili.
See the following:
The Swahili people have been viewed as of Persian/Arabic or Cushitic speaking origin. Scholars have used historical and archaeological data to support this hypothesis. However, linguistic and recent archaeological data suggest the Swahili culture had its origins in the early first centuries A.D. it was the early farming people who settled on the coast in the last centuries B.C. who first adopted iron technology and sailing techniques and founded the coastal settlements. the culture of iron-using people spread to the rest of the coast of East Africa, its center changing fom one place to another. Involvements in transoceanic trade from the early centuries A.D. contributed to the prosperity of the coastal communities as evidenced by coastal monuments. More than 1500 years of cultural continuity was offset by the arrival of European and Arab colonizers in the seventeenth and nineteenth centuries A.D.
African Archaeological Review
16 (3): 199-218, September 1998
Felix Chami
Wednesday, 17 April, 2002, 17:27 GMT 18:27 UK
Tanzanian dig unearths ancient secret
[Skeleton found on Juani island]
The remains hold clues about Africa's ancient history
[test hello] [test]
Tira Shubart
Off Mafia Island, Tanzania
[line]
A discovery which a Tanzanian archaeologist believes will change how East African history is regarded has been made on tiny Juani Island, off the Tanzanian coast.
These discoveries show the people here were interacting with other civilisations - and long before the Islamic era
Prof. Felix Chami
Felix Chami, professor of archaeology at the University of Dar es Salaam has uncovered a major site on Juani, near Mafia Island, which he believes will substantially increase the evidence that East Africa was part of a wider Indian Ocean community.
Previous to Dr Chami's other discoveries on the Tanzanian coast, scholars had never considered East Africa as part of the ancient world.
The professor had been alerted to the existence of the cave by two local men who informed Peter Byrne, owner of a small lodge on Mafia Island and supporter of efforts to discover the intriguing history of these small islands - which are now entirely dependent on fishing.
Cave spirits
We sailed on a dhow from Mafia Island to a beach on nearby Juani Island which Dr Chami believes may have been an ancient port since the Iron Age.
Juani island has lush vegetation
Unlike the other islands, Juani has fresh water and soil suitable for agriculture.
The two local men, whose curiosity had overcome beliefs that the caves are inhabited by spirits, led us more than a kilometre along jungle tracks.
The men hacked a path through the luxuriant growth with pangas which revealed a collapsed coral cave around 20 metres in diameter.
With the help of hanging vines we climbed down into the cave.
Major site
Scattered throughout the seven to 10-metre-high overhanging cave were shards of pottery, human bones and three skulls.
Dr Chami examined the skulls but said only carbon dating would establish their age.
He was most excited by the large habitable area of soft loose soil, at least 50 square metres.
"There could be three metres of layers here to establish a cultural chronology," he says.
"This is a marvel. I believe this was a major Iron Age site. I can assure you this will change the archaeology of East Africa."
Felix Chami will return to the site with his team after the rainy season to start a full excavation.
In the past five years Dr Chami has overturned the belief that Swahili civilisation was simply the result of Indian Ocean trade networks.
Trade secrets
"It was thought that Swahili settlements were founded by foreigners, particularly by Islamic traders," he says. "But these discoveries show the people here were interacting with other civilisations - and long before the Islamic era."
Dr Chami believes the coastal communities may have been trading animal goods, such as ivory as well as iron.
[Professor Felix Chami]
Professor Chami got inspiration from Ptolemy
Dr. Chami utilised the writings of Greek geographer Ptolemy (c.87-150 AD) who described settlements in East Africa as "metropolis" and also referred to "cave dwellers".
Ptolemy even specified a latitude eight degrees south on a large river -the location of the Rufiji river.
It was there on the hills above the river that Dr Chami found the remains of settlements with ancient trading goods and evidence of agriculture.
Directly opposite the Rufiji delta are Mafia & Juani Islands.
Dr Chami's excavations uncovered cultural artefacts which have been carbon dated to 600 BC.
They included Greco-Roman pottery, Syrian glass vessels, Sassanian pottery from Persia and glass beads.
But Felix Chami believes the new site on Juani Island may well be the most significant yet.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/africa/1924318.stm
In Timbuktu many of texts might be written in Arabic,but most of the scholars were black African people. We also have texts in Timbuktu in native indigenous languages of the people who lived there. Timbuktu was originally founded by Tuareg nomads but Kankan Musa around the 1300's developed Timbuktu into the intellectual center it was. The students at Timbuktu were so good that many were installed at Al-Ahzar and other Northern African unverities.
quote:
Ausar and a few others are good at doing this! I've debated with them before on this issue, they all cling to the idea that the only way Africans left Africa was through slavery. They are quite comfortable theorizing any "negroid" skulls found outside of Africa as belonging to slaves, or finding other ways to minimize their importance. Thank god for people like you
who can check them on this
I have never denied there is an African pressence outside of Africa before slavery. However,Africans in Meso-America is pluasible,and I think I mentioned Abu Bakari II Mansa Musa's brother who was supposed to have made it to the Americas.
If you don't know it's documented that the 25th dyansty Nubians invaded all the way to Spain. We also have accounts of Western African during the middle ages traveling to cities like Jerusalem or other regions within the Middle East. We definatley know that Ethiopians from Aksum ruled over large portions of Yemen. Nobody is saying that Africans never left Africa.
quote:
Originally posted by trexmaster:
1) You are so wrong about that elephant motif I wonder if you are lying. The animal's ear EXCEEDS that of a human being by many times.
If anyone on this board is a LIAR, it is you. Even for an actual elephant, that ear is way too small! Do you even know what an elephant looks like? And I must warn you about your name calling policy.
You might want to look up the rules posted for this forum.
If you want to refute me, fine. But don't start calling people names, because you can't come up with a logical way of refuting their claims!
[This message has been edited by supercar (edited 19 July 2004).]
[This message has been edited by supercar (edited 19 July 2004).]
quote:
If anyone on this board is a LIAR, it is you. Even for an actual elephant, that ear is way too small! Do you even know what an elephant looks like? And I must warn you about your name calling policy.You might want to look up the rules posted for this forum.
If you want to refute me, fine. But don't start calling people names, because you can't come up with a logical way of refuting their claims!
My mistake, I misunderstood you. The reason I said "lying" was because I thought you were saying that the elephant's ear was as big as a human being, even though it wasn't, and I thought that one would have to lie to say it was. I didn't really mean to call you names (and the "if anyone on this board is a LIAR, it is you" comment, BTW, IS name-calling).
Also, this is an elephant species only known thanks to fossilized bones. Who is to say its ears are too small? This is an extinct species we're talking about.
quote:
Originally posted by trexmaster:
Also, this is an elephant species only known thanks to fossilized bones. Who is to say its ears are too small? This is an extinct species we're talking about.
I have yet to hear of an elephant with ears that size in proportion to its body size. Unless, I get scientific evidence of the existance of such an elephant, I will not hold that view as truth.
If these elephants have been extinct, once again, why is it that the Olmec people had them in their artwork, but their ancestors didn't bother depicting the elephants in their artwork? The ancestors were supposed to have passed on information of these animals onto the Olmecs.
That the Olmecs were able to depict these animals, while their ancestors didn't, may be because their ancestors weren't familiar with such animal. This would make sense expecially, if we hold true that the elephants were extinct for 10,000 years. That being the case, then it makes sense to come to the conclusion that the Olmecs may have got their ideas of elephants from another culture! Until someone can explain why there were no artwork of elephants leading in progression to the Olmec depictions, there is no reason to rule out the fore-mentioned possibility.
quote:
Originally posted by supercar:
I have yet to hear of an elephant with ears that size in proportion to its body size. Unless, I get scientific evidence of the existance of such an elephant, I will not hold that view as truth.If these elephants have been extinct, once again, why is it that the Olmec people had them in their artwork, but their ancestors didn't bother depicting the elephants in their artwork? The ancestors were supposed to have passed on information of these animals onto the Olmecs.
That the Olmecs were able to depict these animals, while their ancestors didn't, may be because their ancestors weren't familiar with such animal. This would make sense expecially, if we hold true that the elephants were extinct for 10,000 years. That being the case, then it makes sense to come to the conclusion that the Olmecs may have got their ideas of elephants from another culture! Until someone can explain why there were no artwork of elephants leading in progression to the Olmec depictions, there is no reason to rule out the fore-mentioned possibility.
I already responded to that point, but I'll point it out again, since you missed my last phrasing of it: we know that Mesoamericans hunted mammoths and mastodons, or at least co-existed with them (along with saber-toothed cats and the like), and yet, as rasol and you say, they left no artwork depicting these animals prior the Olmec period. Perhaps it is possible that the Olmec culture's more artistic aspects came rather late?
quote:
Originally posted by trexmaster:
I already responded to that point, but I'll point it out again, since you missed my last phrasing of it: we know that Mesoamericans hunted mammoths and mastodons, or at least co-existed with them (along with saber-toothed cats and the like), and yet, as rasol and you say, they left no artwork depicting these animals prior the Olmec period. Perhaps it is possible that the Olmec culture's more artistic aspects came rather late?
How can you claim to have answered our question, when you haven't given a definitive answer. We are looking for facts, not assumptions. Until this happens, the question will continue to come up!
quote:
I have yet to hear of an elephant with ears that size in proportion to its body size. Unless, I get scientific evidence of the existance of such an elephant, I will not hold that view as truth.
Again, this is most likely an extinct species we're talking about. You never saw this particular species of elephant (since they're most likely all extinct), why must you make assumptions about its ear size based on that of modern day elephants from different species?
quote:
Originally posted by trexmaster:
Again, this is most likely an extinct species we're talking about. You never saw this particular species of elephant (since they're most likely all extinct), why must you make assumptions about its ear size based on that of modern day elephants from different species?
I hope you understand that scientists have developed methods to see how the animal looked from skeletal or fossil remains. They obviously came up with animals that didn't look that much different from their African and Asian cousines. Perhaps you should pose your question to them. But again, I will not hold the view of elephants with extremely small ears as truth, unless I get scientific evidence.
quote:
Originally posted by supercar:
How can you claim to have answered our question, when you haven't given a definitive answer. We are looking for facts, not assumptions. Until this happens, the question will continue to come up!
Admittedly it's not a complete debunking, but I was not going for that. I was trying to provide an alternative way at interpreting the evidence. You are also making your own assumptions: you're ASSUMING that elephants in Mesoamerican artwork = proof of African/Mesoamerican contact prior to Columbus. An assumption is not necessarily a bad thing.
quote:
Originally posted by supercar:
I hope you understand that scientists have developed methods to see how the animal looked from skeletal or fossil remains. They obviously came up with animals that didn't look that much different from their African and Asian cousines. Perhaps you should pose your question to them. But again, I will not hold the view of elephants with extremely small ears as truth, unless I get scientific evidence.
But an ear is made out of cartilage. Cartilage does not fossilize. So we can't really prove any one depiction wrong or right unless it's contradicted by fossil evidence. Therefore, be careful before saying that "elephants don't have ears that small" when the elephant in the picture coild be an extinct American species.
[This message has been edited by trexmaster (edited 20 July 2004).]
[This message has been edited by trexmaster (edited 20 July 2004).]
quote:
Originally posted by trexmaster:
Admittedly it's not a complete debunking, but I was not going for that. I was trying to provide an alternative way at interpreting the evidence. You are also making your own assumptions: you're ASSUMING that elephants in Mesoamerican artwork = proof of African/Mesoamerican contact prior to Columbus. An assumption is not necessarily a bad thing.
My so-called assumption is really based on the fact of the availability of artwork. And you are wrong, about me assuming that the elephant artwork means connection with Africans. After all, elephants dwell in Africa and Asia. It could be the contribution of people from either area. One would have to examine the sulptures thoroughly to come to a solid conclusion. Trust me, it takes more than elephant artwork, to convince me that Africans found their way to America. Some of the Olmec heads have Africoid features; there is even one Olmec sculpture of a head exhibiting an Afro-like hair. Then, there are Olmec scripts that have similar elements to that found in Proto-Saharan script.
You make assumptions based on the availability of nothing. Where is the evidence that shows that the several generations preceeding the Olmec civilization knew about elephants? Even if, they weren't as artistic a culture as the Olmecs, they still would have some depiction of animals they hunted or had come into contact with. Now you say that they must have passed on the elephant information to the Olmecs by folklore, but then, their artwork would still show this! Obviously the elephants were symbolic in the Olmec culture. As such, thei r ancestors, if they indeed passed on elephant folklore to the Olmecs, would see the symbolic nature of elephants. They would express this symbolism in their artwork, even if they were supposedly less artistic a culture compared to the Olmecs. The Olmec civilization must have been the product of a less complex civilization, and that simple civilization should exhibit some traditions found in the Olmec civilization. Civilizations are products of progressive development of societies, and don't just spontaneously rise!
I would like to make one thing clear: I am not claiming the Olmec civilization. All I am saying is that Africans found their way over there, that is all. We have enough powerful Ancient African civilizations already in place, to be too concerned about some Ancient American civilization.
[This message has been edited by supercar (edited 20 July 2004).]
quote:
Originally posted by trexmaster:
But an ear is made out of cartilage. Cartilage does not fossilize. So we can't really prove any one depiction wrong or right unless it's contradicted by fossil evidence. Therefore, be careful before saying that "elephants don't have ears that small" when the elephant in the picture coild be an extinct American species.[This message has been edited by trexmaster (edited 20 July 2004).]
Why should I be careful, when it is the scientists who came to that conclusion using scientific studies. Like I said, if you have any objections as to how scientists show these elephants, you have to pose the question to them!!!
I am just one individual who is asking for scientific evidence showing elephants with small ears such as you described or described in the link you provided.
Comments?
* I once spoke to a British Rhodesian who claimed that the Shona could never have built Great Zimbabwe because she'd been in their homes, and they were a mess! lol.
Of course this means nothing since the common Mayan and Incan lived in crude mud dwellings but their monumental architecture was stone. Just like the ancient Kemetians who lived in mud dwellings but also built in stone. Besides,we have stone monuments predtating that of Great Zimbabwee that show nothing changed over the course of years.
A British archaeologist named Randall-MacIver put the final nail in the coffin for outside influces for Great Zimbabwee. This is why I reject the notion of Lemba Jews[which some modern day racialist try to use to uproot claims of indigenous development].