...
Post A Reply
my profile
|
directory
login
|
register
|
search
|
faq
|
forum home
»
EgyptSearch Forums
»
Deshret
»
Xiu are not Mande or taught Maya to write
» Post A Reply
Post A Reply
Login Name:
Password:
Message Icon:
Message:
HTML is not enabled.
UBB Code™ is enabled.
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Quetzalcoatl: [QB] [QUOTE]Originally posted by Clyde Winters: [qb] The Olmecs came from Africa. There is no evidence that the Olmec existed in Mexico before 1200-1100 BC. The archaeological evidence suggest that the Olmec "miraculously appear on American soil". Some researchers claim that I am wrongly ruling out an “indigenous revolution” for the origin of the Olmec civilization. This is their opinion—the archaeological evidence, not I, suggest that the founders of the Olmec civilization were not “indigenous” people. In the [b]Olmec World: Ritual and Rulership [/b](1995), (ed.) by Carolyn Tate, on page 65, we find the following statement”Olmec culture as far as we know seems to have no antecedents; no material models remain for its monumental constructions and sculptures and the ritual acts captured in small objects”. M. Coe, writing in[b] Regional Perspective on the Olmecs (1989), (ed.) by Sharer and Grove, observed that “ on the contrary, the evidence although negative, is that the Olmec style of art, and Olmec engineering ability suddenly appeared full fledged from about 1200 BC”. [/b] Mary E. Pye, writing in [b] Olmec Archaeology in Mesoamerica[/b] (2000), (ed.) by J.E. Cark and M.E. Pye,makes it clear after a discussion of the pre-Olmec civilizations of the Mokaya tradition, that these cultures contributed nothing to the rise of the Olmec culture. Pye wrote “The Mokaya appear to have gradually come under Olmec influence during Cherla times and to have adopted Olmec ways. We use the term olmecization to describe the processes whereby independent groups tried to become Olmecs, or to become like the Olmecs” (p.234). Pye makes it clear that it was around 1200 BC that Olmec civilization rose in Mesoamerica. She continues “Much of the current debate about the Olmecs concerns the traditional mother culture view. For us this is still a primary issue. Our data from the Pacific coast show that the mother culture idea is still viable in terms of cultural practices. The early Olmecs created the first civilization in Mesoamerica; they had no peers, only contemporaries” (pp.245-46). Richard A. Diehl [b]The Olmecs:America’s first civilization[/b] (2005), wrote “ The identity of these first Olmecs remains a mystery. Some scholars believe they were Mokaya migrants from the Pacific coast of Chiapas who brought improved maize strains and incipient social stratification with them. Others propose that Olmec culture evolved among the local indigenous populations without significant external stimulus. I prefer the latter position, but freely admit that we lack sufficient information on the period before 1500 BC to resolve the issue” (p.25). Pool (17-18), in [b]Olmec Archaeology and early MesoAmerica[/b] (2007), argues that continuity exist between the Olmec and pre-Olmec cultures in Mexico “[even]though Coe now appears to favor an autochthonous origin for Olmec culture (Diehl & Coe 1995:150), he long held that the Olmec traits appeared at San Lorenzo [b] rather suddenly during the Chicharras phase (ca 1450-1408 BC)[/b] (Coe 1970a:25,32; Coe and Diehl 1980a:150)”. Pool admits (p.95), that “this conclusion contrasts markedly with that of the excavators of San Lorenzo, who reported dramatic change in ceramic type and [b] argued on this basis for a foreign incursion of Olmecs into Olman (Coe and Diehl 1980a, p.150).” The evidence presented by these authors make it clear that the Olmec introduced a unique culture to Mesoamerica that was adopted by the Mesoamericans. As these statements make it clear that was no continuity between pre-Olmec cultures and the Olmec culture. T . [/qb][/QUOTE][/b] Boring spam. In the future I will show many more examples of Winters’s techniques of misquoting, partial quoting, and paraphrasing instead of accurate quoting to misrepresent the facts and make it seem as if he has established scholars agreeing with his version of events. The Olmecs [b]DID NOT[/b] arise suddenly in 1200 BC. See the following: Tate, C. E. 1995 “Art in Olmec Culture,” pp. 47-67 In [u] The Olmec world [/u]Princeton: the Art Museum, Princeton University [QUOTE]p. 47 “ For the purpose of this discussion, Formative period objects embodying the themes, formats, subjects and formal qualities associated with the dominant form of shamanic kingship, not only from the Gulf Coast but also from other areas of Mesoamerica, will be called “Olmec.” Most of the object in this exposition probably date to the Middle Formative and are part of a widespread ceremonial complex, as discussed by F. Kent Reilly, III, in this volume.” . . . p. 65 Far more than merely a style, however, Olmec art objects codified and communicated a shamanic reality whose fundamental truths were shared by disparate peoples across Mesoamerica... Taken together, the subjects of Olmec art must present a nearly complete view of the ideological concerns of America’s first civilization.. . Olmec culture as far as we know seems to have had no antecedents, no material models remain for its monumental constructions an sculpture and the ritual acts captured in small objects.[/QUOTE]Winters continues to cite the underlined Tate statement in support of his “sudden origin” omitting the paragraph on p. 46 or the prior qualification on p. 67. When we asked Dr. Tate about these lines, she pointed out that she was speaking about all of Mesoamerica not just the Gulf Olmec. [QUOTE]From: "Tate, Carolyn" <CAROLYN.TATE@ttu.edu> To: > Sent: Tuesday, January 19, 2010 12:45 PM Subject: Re: Hello Professor Tate, is this still your interpretation? It depends on how we define "Olmec." in that statement I used the term at its broadest, to refer to any culture of the Initial Formative Period in Mesoamerica. I did not mean to refer to the GULF COAST Olmec exclusively. antecedents to Gulf Coast Olmec art and ritual include Nixtamalization--Oaxaca earliest Mounds-- pacific coast earliest ball court -- Geo Shih or Paso de la Amada earliest evidence of social stratification -- Paso de la Amada Earliest use of jade axes in a ritual deposit -- El Manati hope this helps. why do you ask? C Tate On Jan 18, 2010, at 10:21 PM, In the Olmec World: Ritual and Rulership (1995), (ed.) by Carolyn Tate, on page 65, we find the following statement "Olmec culture as far as we know seems to have no antecedents; no material models remain for its monumental constructions and sculptures and the ritual acts captured in small objects". http://bafsudralam.blogspot.com/2009/10/did-olmecs-miraculously-appear-on.html<blockedhttp://bafsudralam.blogspot.com/2009/10/did-olmecs-miraculously-appear-on.html> Or have more finding popped up since then. Sincerely,[/QUOTE]The following is a series of Winters’ statements that are incorrect or misleading by selective quotations. [QUOTE]Winters Mary E. Pye, writing in Olmec Archaeology in Mesoamerica (2000), (ed.) by J. E. Clark and M.E. Pye, makes it clear after a discussion of the pre-Olmec civilizations of the Mokaya tradition, that these cultures contributed nothing to the rise of Olmec culture. Pye wrote “The Mokaya appear to have gradually come under Olmec influence during Cherla times and to have adopted Olmec ways. We use the term olmecization to describe the processes whereby independent groups tried to become like the Olmecs” (p. 234).[/QUOTE][b]BOM[/b] (as usual Winters can’t cite accurately) The full cite is Clark, J.E. and M.E. Pye 2000 “The Pacific Coast and the Olmec,” in J.E. Clark and M.E. Pye, eds., [u]Olmec Art and Archaeology in Mesoamerica[/u] pp. 217-251 Washington: National Academy of Art completely misrepresents what Clark and Pye say— Mokaya and the Olmec area (Olman) interacted for a thousand years. [b]The cite Winters uses refers to the LAST phase interaction.[/b] [QUOTE]p. 243-244. At the beginning of the Early Formative [BOM Barra Phase 1700-1500 BC]-, the Mokaya at the Soconusco were clearly independent of other peoples of Mesoamerica, Early forms of rank society, or simple chiefdoms, evolved in the Pacific Coast region, and these institutions were quickly adopted by neighboring peoples including those living in Olman [what is usually called the Olmec heartland] (see Clark 1994a; Clark and Blake 1994). There is clear archaeological evidence of early contact between the peoples of the Pacific Coast and those of Olman in pre-Olmec times, most apparent in ceramic assemblages and the types of obsidian imported into each region. The Mokaya’s impact on the first villagers of Olman remains to be determined, but we think it was significant [see Clark 1990; Clark and Blake 1989). Some contact was maintained between the two groups throughout the Formative period, but after the initial close contact at the beginning of the Early Formative the peoples in the Soconusco and Olman developed along separate paths. The people of Olman created the cultural patterns and representational systems that we now call “Olmec”, and the Mokaya of the Soconusco continued much as before. About 1200 B.C. the Olmecs of Olman and the Mokaya of the Mazatan regions once again begin to interact with greater frequency.[/QUOTE][ [QUOTE][b]Winters[/b]: Pye makes it clear that it was around 1200 BC that Olmec civilization rose in Mesoamerica. She continues “Much of the current debate about the Olmecs concerns the traditional mother culture view. For us, this is still a primary issue. Our data from the Pacific Coast show that the mother culture idea is still viable in terms of cultural practices. The early Olmecs created the first civilization in Mesoamerica; they had no peers, only contemporaries.[/QUOTE][BOM] Pye does NOT say that “it was around 1200 BC that Olmec civilization rose..” AND Winters omits the rest of the paragraph that contradicts his claims [QUOTE]PP. 245-246 [b]Much of the current debate about the Olmecs concerns the traditional mother culture view. For us, this is still a primary issue. Our data from the Pacific Coast show that the mother culture idea is still viable in terms of cultural practices. The early Olmecs created the first civilization in Mesoamerica; they had no peers, only contemporaries. (This much quoted by Winters)[/b] BUT WINTERS DOES NOT CITE THE REST OF THE PARAGRAPH Creation of this first stratified society involved the forging and crystallization of social, political, and religious institutions that became the hallmarks of Mesoamerica itself.[b] As with all historical entities and cultural configurations, this was not creation ex nihilo but from preexistent matter. The Olmecs clearly were influenced by their predecessors and neighbors, such as the Mokaya, in significant ways. . .[/b][/QUOTE]. Pye, M. E. and Clark, J.E. 2000 “Introducing Olmec Archaeology,” in J.E. Clark and M.E. Pye, eds., [U]Olmec Art and Archaeology in Mesoamerica [/U]pp. 9-17 Washington: National Academy of Art Another quote from Pye and Clark: [QUOTE]p. 9-10 This definition begs the question, of course, of just what is meant by “Mesoamerican practices”; these include traits such as the cultivation of chocolate, manufacture of paper, the rubber-ball game, human sacrifice, complex ritual calendar, beliefs in corn deities and others [see Kirchhoff 1943].. . Textbooks perpetuate the fallacy of Mesoamerica as a fixed geographical territory. The original distinction remains valuable, however, because there was time, about 1500 B.C., when these cultural practices had not yet been established or disseminated. Along with the “where” of Mesoamerica, we need to consider the “when.” How was the Mesoamerican way of life established? How did it evolve? And how did it spread over time? . . . . p. 12 We suggest, instead, that the term [Olmec] be used to describe peoples who followed a particular suite of cultural practices that included certain forms of visual representations (see Clark and Pye this volume).. . . We also believe that the archaeological record already demonstrates convincingly that there were several contemporaneous Olmec polities or entities for most time periods, so we have opted for the plural to convey the idea of plurality rather than a single monolithic entity.[/QUOTE][b]BOM here are more quotes on the topic by other Olmec Scholars[/b] David C. Grove. 1993. “Olmec” Horizons in Formative Period Mesoamerica: Diffusion or Social Evolution?” In Don S. Rice, ed. [u]Latin American Horizons[/u]. Washington, DC: Dumbarton Oaks. [QUOTE]p.85 The “origins” of Olmec culture have been speculative at times. Because the early La Venta explorations were confined to a mound-plaza complex (Complex A) now known to be relatively late in Olmec prehistory, no antecedents to the artifacts recovered there were readily apparent, and thus a notion began that perhaps Olmec culture was intrusive and that it had not originated on the Gulf Coast (see below also). However, the stratigraphic data later retrieved by Michael Coe and Richard Diehl from San Lorenzo clearly demonstrate that Olmec culture is indeed indigenous to the Gulf Coast (Coe 1970; Coe and Diehl 1980; Grove 1981a: 376-378). ******** The argument for the origin of Olmec style coming from coastal Guatemala is made by John Graham, “Olmec Diffusion: A Cultural View from Pacific Guatemala,” pp. 227-246. This book has chapter by practically all the key archaeologists involved in Olmec research. Now, having published a number of books, I can tell you that these chapters were written up to 2 years before publication. Furthermore, ideas are published as papers in professional journals before they get into books. These ideas are at least 10 years old. [b]As I pointed out previously, the Olmec *did not* arise suddenly. In the Gulf Area, there is evidence of continual and gradually increasing in complexity occupation of the San Lorenzo site dating to 1500 B.C. (Coe and Diehl 1980) and in the La Venta site occupation of the Rio Bari as far back as 1800 B.C. (Rust and Leyden 1994). A recent summary of the origin of the Olmecs is the quote from Clark (1991):[/b] “The Mesoamerican tradition was first clearly in place by Olmec times. Here (in Guatemala BOM) its beginnings are traced back five centuries before the Olmecs to the Mokaya of the Pacific Coast of Chiapas, Mexico. It is argued here that the first complex cities in Middle America arose in this littoral shore and had profound and widespread civilizing influence on the area that would soon become the nucleus of Mesoamerica. Recent research in the Mazatan region of Coastal Chiapas suggests that simple chiefdom societies were in place by at least 1650 B.C.”[/QUOTE]Clark, J. F. 1991. “The Beginnings of Mesoamerica: Apologia for the Soconusco Early Formative.” in [u]The Formation of Complex Society in Southeastern Mesoamerica[/u]. edited by Wm. R. Fowler. 13-26. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press. Coe, M. D. Coe and R. A. Diehl. 1980. [u]In the Land of the Olmecs: Archeology of San Lorenzo Tenochtitlan[/u]. 2 vols. Austin: University of Texas Press. Rust, W.F. and B. W. Leyden. 1994. “Evidence of Maize use at Early and Middle Preclassic La Venta Olmec Sites,” in S. Johannessen and C. H. Hostoy, eds. [u]Corn and Culture in the Prehistoric World[/u] pp. 181-201.Boulder: Westview Press. %%%%%%% Properly cited Diehl, R. A. 2004 [u] The Olmecs: America’s First Civilization[/u] NY: Thames & Hudson [QUOTE][b]Winters says:[/b] Richard A. Diehl The Olmecs: America’s first civilization (2005) wrote “The identity of these first Olmecs remains a mystery. Some scholars believe they were Mokaya migrants from the Pacific coast of Chiapas who brought improved maize strains and incipient social stratification with them. Others propose that Olmec culture evolved among the local indigenous populations without significant external stimulus. I prefer the latter position, but freely admit that we lack sufficient information on the period before 1500 BC to resolve the issue.” (p. 25)[/QUOTE]BOM a couple of points 1) Diehl poses ONLY 2 possibilities- Mokaya or indigenous development nothing else—so this DOES NOT allow the possibility of an African intervention. Also see that San Lorenzo has been pushed back to 1600 BC and that the pottery from that period is identical to pottery from Mokaya, El Manati, and Chiapas supporting Clark and Pye that there were several contacts between San Lorenzo and Mokaya. The first one— Mokaya was more advanced and influenced San Lorenzo and LATER comes the contact used by Winters where San Lorenzo came back and influenced Mokaya. It would be useful to show that pottery of the Ojochi period was very different from African Mande pottery (they may have still been pastoralists and not making pottery- also compare Chicharras pottery) Also, as usual [b]Winters’ quotes selectively[/b] Immediately before what Winters quotes —the paragraph says: [QUOTE]Until recently archaeologists believed that Olmec culture did not emerge as an identifiable entity until 1200 BC, but today they can trace its origins probably to at least 1600-1500 BC. [b]BOM denies Winters’ claim that the Mande arrived 1200 BC[/b] During that century true Olmec remains were ritually deposited at El Manati, a sacred shrine near San Lorenzo in the lower Coatzacoalcos basin. There is good reason to believe that the worshippers came from San Lorenzo, the first large Olmec center and possibly the original hearth of Olmec culture and art. p. 27 “ Excavations at San Lorenzo have revealed three phases of occupation prior to its emergence as a full-blown city at 1200 BC: Ojochi (1550-1350 BC), Bajio (1350-1250 BC) and Chicharras (1250-1150 BC). Remains of these occupations lie deeply buried under later debris but even so, recent excavations suggest that San Lorenzo covered at least 20 ha (49 acres) by 1250 BC. Surveys in the 400-sq. km (155-sq. mile) region around San Lorenzo identified more than 1000 Bajio and Chicharras-phase sites that formed a complex three-tiered settlement hierarchy with the village of San Lorenzo at its apex. The subsidiary communities included nine small villages and scores of small hamlets and farmsteads. Most settlements were located on high ground that did not flood, but yet provided access to fresh water and fluvial transport. San Lorenzo was the largest village in the region and seems to have dominated the entire zone even at this early time, perhaps receiving food and other tribute from its subordinates. Ojochi-phase [BOM 1600-1500 BC] pottery includes utilitarian wares used in daily life as well as finely made vessels suitable for ceremonial feasting. Vessel forms included bowls, thin-walled tecomates (restricted mouth-jars that resemble gourds), and jars with out-flaring necks. Red slips and a variety of surface modifications such as gadrooning, grooving , punctuation, and contrasting polished and roughened areas all added to the attractiveness of the vessels. [b]Ojochi-phase pottery is virtually identical to Manati-A-phase ceramics, as well as more distant Pellicer-phase materials in Tabasco, and Barra-phase pottery found in coastal Chiapas across the Isthmus of Tehuantepec[/b][/QUOTE][b]Winters says: [QUOTE]“Pool (17-18) in Olmec Archaeology and Early Mesoamerica (2007), argues that continuity exist [sic] between Olmec and pre-Olmec cultures in Mexico”[even] though Coe now appears to favor an autochthonous origin of Olmec culture (Diehl& Coe 1995: 150), he long held that the Olmec traits appeared at San Lorenzo [u]rather suddenly during the Chicharras phase (ca 1450-1408 BC) (Coe 1970a:25,32: Coe and Diehl 1980a: 150.”[/b] And “Pool admits (p. 95), that “this conclusion contrasts markedly with that of the excavators of San Lorenzo who reported dramatic change in ceramic types and argued on this basis for a foreign incursion of Olmecs into Olman (Coe and Diehl 1980a, p. 150).” [/QUOTE][BOM] Again a thin reed. Notice that even his own cite contradicts his 1200 BC scenario by 250 years Just because Winters’ never changes his positions even when they have been proved to be wrong for years does not mean that REAL scholars do not change their views when new or contrary evidence comes to light. Coe’s and Diehl’s opinion of 30-40 year ago is no longer valid because there have been a lot of excavation in the intervening period. First, the latest opinion of Coe and Diehl. (Pool has a typo in his Diehl and Coe 1995 cite) Diehl, R. A. and M. D. Coe 1995 “ Olmec Archaeology,” in [u]The Olmec world Ritual and Rulership[/u] Princeton, NJ: Art Museum, Princeton University. [QUOTE]p. 11-12 [b]“Biologically, the Olmec were Native Americans whose Ice Age ancestors entered the New World from northern Asia via the Bering Strait land bridge. This may come as a surprise to readers familiar with recent sensationalist claims that the Olmecs were Egyptians, Phoenicians, West Africans, Chinese, or even refugees from sunken continents. Scholars rightly dismiss such ideas as outlandish fairy tales and will continue to do so until archaeologists uncover at least one Old world artifact or human skeleton in an Olmec archaeological site. A verified archaeological find of this sort would be truly revolutionary, but none has appeared and it is unlikely any will.”[/b] . . . The earliest evidence of human occupation in the Olmec heartland is found on the natural levees of the Rio Bari, an old, silted-in stream near la Venta, Tabasco, where farmers settled as early as 2200 B.C. similar villages occurred along all the river valleys of the Olmec heartland in the following centuries. Although they appear to lack the monumental art and architecture, social hierarchies, and complex institutions that characterize Olmec culture, [b]these villages clearly provided the local population base for the later Olmec expansion. By the end of the pre-Olmec period, San Lorenzo and La Venta were growing faster than other communities and fragments of basalt monuments in some of the deepest levels at San Lorenzo suggest that the Olmec sculptural tradition existed prior to 1200 B.C.”[/b][QUOTE] Now Diehl Diehl, R. A. 2004 [u]The Olmecs America’s first Civilization[/u] NY: Thames & Hudson [QUOTE]pp. 13-14 “The origins of Olmec culture have intrigued scholars and lay people alike since Tres Zapotes Colossal head 1, a gigantic stone human head with vaguely Negroid features was discovered in Veracruz 140 years ago. Since that time, Olmec culture and art have been attributed to seafaring Africans, Egyptians, Nubians, Phoenicians, Atlanteans, Japanese, Chinese, and other ancient wanderers. As often happens, the truth is infinitely more logical, if less romantic: the Olmecs were Native Americans who created a unique culture in southeastern Mexico’s Isthmus of Tehuantepec. [b]Archaeologists now trace Olmec origins back to pre-Olmec cultures in the region and there is no credible evidence for major intrusions from the outside. Furthermore, not a single bona fide artifact of Old world origin has ever appeared in an Olmec archaeological site, or for that matter anywhere else in Mesoamerica.[/b] p. 28 “The Chicharras phase (1250-1150 BC) was a critical juncture in San Lorenzo’s history that presaged the full emergence of Olmec culture. The population continued to grow dramatically while the pottery assemblage underwent dramatic changes. Michael D. Coe and I originally attributed these changes to [b]immigrants from elsewhere in the Olmec region [BOM not another continent]][/b], but I am less convinced of this hypothesis today than I was in 1980. Differentially fired black-and-white pottery increased in popularity while many old pottery types disappeared.[/QUOTE]%%%% Finally another expert on Olmec art Karl A. Taube. 2004. [u]Olmec Art at Dumbarton Oaks /Washington DC: Dumbarton Oaks[/u] [QUOTE]p.1 To this day, the Olmec continue to be traced to such distant regions as Africa and China (Van Sertima 1976; Thomson 1989; Gonzalez Calderon 1991; Xu 1996). [NOTE 1. Quite frequently, arguments for Old world contacts are based on superficial visual resemblances. A particularly egregious example appeared in U.S. News & World Report (Fenyvesi 1996). According to Shang scholar, Han Ping Chen. One of the miniature jade stelae from La Venta Offering 4 contains a readable Chinese text (ibid.) it has been known for some time, however, that these miniature stelae derive from halves of incised celts cut along the central long axis. Two of the incised Offering 4 “stelae” are parts of the same incised celt, which portrayed a flying figure holding a knuckle-duster and maize ear fetish (see Cervantes 1969; fig. 11). As for the purported incised Shang text, it constitutes half of a frontally facing depiction of the Olmec Maize god. For a reconstruction of the entire figure, see Reilly n.d.; fig 4.51]. [b]The archaeological evidence argues for an entirely indigenous development, however, and many Olmec traits are traceable to earlier cultures of Early Formative Mesoamerica. There is simply no material evidence of any pre-Hispanic contact between the Old world and Mesoamerica before the arrival of the Spanish in the sixteenth century. p. 5-7. Although the Olmec were extremely early, they by no means appeared ex nihilo, like some wondrous mushroom, out of the swampy Gulf coast lowlands. Many of the more fundamental Olmec traits, such as social hierarchy, ceramics, food production, monumental architecture, craft specialization, ball game, dedicatory offerings, and the restricted use of jade and other rare, exotic goods already were present among earlier Formative peoples. Although similar and contemporaneous developments were surely occurring in the Olmec heartland, the incipient Formative period is best documented for the nearby coastal piedmont region of southern Chiapas and neighboring Guatemala, often referred to as the Soconusco (Blake 1991; Blake et al. 1995; Ceja Tenorio 1985; Clark 1991, 1994; John Clark and Michael Blake 1989, 1994; Coe 1961; Green and Lowe 1967; Love 1975). Clark and Blake (1989) aptly term the Early Formative people of this region Mokaya, a Mixe-Zoque word for “the people of the corn.”[/b] [/QUOTE]%%%%%%%%%% [/QB][/QUOTE]
Instant Graemlins
Instant UBB Code™
What is UBB Code™?
Options
Disable Graemlins in this post.
*** Click here to review this topic. ***
Contact Us
|
EgyptSearch!
(c) 2015 EgyptSearch.com
Powered by UBB.classic™ 6.7.3