Tres Zapotes is located on the slopes of the Tuxtla Mountains, in the State of Veracruz. It is one of the most important Olmec sites, and the first to be written about by explorers. Melgar y Serrano (1868), Eduard Seler (1906) and Albert Weyerstall (1925) all reported seeing the colossal head at Hueyapan, near the village of Tres Zapotes. Matthew Stirling went to see the head in 1938; it inspired him to study the culture of its creators.
Matthew Stirling, Clarence Weiant and Philip Drucker were the first to attempt to establish a chronological sequence for the ceramics and stone monuments found at Tres Zapotes. One of the difficulties in dating Tres Zapotes is the fact that many of the forty stone carvings found at the site, were reused long after they were first carved. Three particularly important finds were two colossal heads and a carved stone known as Stela C, probably the most significant discovery at Tres Zapotes. Stela C played an important role in dating not only this site but other Olmec sites, and the early development of Mesoamerican civilization, as well.
While the debate continues, it is estimated that the occupation of Tres Zapotes may have begun as early as 1500 BC, and that it achieved prominence during the Early Formative period, between 1200 and 900 BC. During the Late Formative, 400 BC to 100 AD, when other Olmec centers such as La Venta were already in decline, Tres Zapotes sculptures showed the influence of other artistic styles, such as that of Izapa in the Guatemalan Highlands, and other regional styles.
This indicates ongoing trade connections with other cultures, which influenced Tres Zapotes. Despite the fact that Olmec culture may have no longer existed as such, Tres Zapotes continued to be occupied until well into the Early Postclassic (1000-1200 AD).
Stirling was the first archaeologist to attempt systematic excavations at the site in 1939 and 1940. Since then, only a few scholars have returned to Tres Zapotes to continue scientific investigations. The archaeologist Ponciano Ortiz Ceballos worked at the site in the early 1970s. Other archaeologists from the Instituto Nacional de Antropología e Historia [INAH] returned in 1978 for salvage operations during the construction of a gas pipeline, and discovered a columnar basalt enclosure.
posted
There are no “pure” Mexindians. Lisker noted that between 5-50% of Indian genes are African genes. See: Suarez-Diaz,(2014) Indigenous populations in Mexico. Medical anthropology in the Work of Ruben Lisker in the 1960’s. Studies in History and Philosophy of Biological and Biomedical Sciences 47 (p.11)
quote:Originally posted by Clyde Winters: There are no “pure” Mexindians.
So therefore the above people could be descendants of the Olmec, correct ? many of the Olmecs being, according to you, African immigrants to the region
Posts: 42919 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
posted
Mexico never became a slavery society, but its economy did use slaves for many years during the colonial period.
Although the majority of Mexicans do not have any African Ancestry, a small percentage of Mexicans in Veracruz and Oaxaca states have black ancestry.
Black mestizos account for less than 0.5 percent of the Mexican population as of today.
According to early census data and allowances made for escaped slaves, Aguirre Beltrán arrives at the following estimates of the black population:
Black Population in Colonial Mexico
1570 AD 20,569 1646 AD 35, 089 1742 AD 15,980 ( total pop 3,336,000 ) (0.4%)
the black population in the early colony was by far larger than that of the Spanish. In 1570 we see that the black population is about 3 times that of the Spanish. In 1646, it is about 2.5 times as large, and in 1742, blacks still outnumber the Spanish. It is not until 1810 that Spaniards are more numerous.
quote:Originally posted by Clyde Winters: There are no “pure” Mexindians.
So therefore the above people could be descendants of the Olmec, correct ? many of the Olmecs being, according to you, African immigrants to the region
Not really. The pictures from classical Mayan sites indicate that there were two different Mayan groups the Black Mayans, e.g., Chontal and Black Native Americans in Hondurus, Guatemala and Belize, and the mongoloid Native Americans in Yucatan. It would appear to me that most of the admixture took place after the Malian settlement of Mexico and the Atlantic Slave trade.
.
. Black Native American architects at Xultun .
Posts: 13012 | From: Chicago | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
In the Video Dr. Keita attempts to explain Polytopicity , by claiming that although the Melanesians and Africans look similar they are not related because they speak different languages and possess disimilar genes.
Use of melanesians and Africans to exemplify Polytopicity was a bad analogy, because Africans and Melanesians are not only Negroes, they also share genes, placenames and language.
There is constant changes in the terminology for haplogroups as researchers attempt to imply that Africans carry one set of genes, and other populations outside Africa carry a different and unique set of genes. Although this is the case in many cases the populations are carrying African genes--whoes name has been changed to erase any unity between Sub-Saharan Africa and everyone else.
For example, Africans and Melanesians share haplogroups.
In fact, they also share common placenames. Shared place names in Melanesia suggest that the Melanesians recently came to the Pacific from Africa, as claimed by the Fijians.
The Melanesians probably belonged to the Niger-Congo and Dravidian speaking communities that formerly lived in the Sahara-Sahel region until 5-6kya. The Melanesians formerly lived in Africa and/or South China/Southeast Asia before they sailed to the Pacific Islans, probably as part of the Lapita migrations.
In figure 3 we see cognate Mande and Melanesian terms for vase, pot, arrow, cattle/ox, and fish. They also shared agricultural terms as well
Polynesian English Manding *talun fallow, land daa *tanem to plant daa *suluq torch, flame suu *kuDen cooking pot,bowl ku
As you can see the Melanesians and Africans are not only negroid they also share genes, placenames and culture terms. Obviously, use of Melanesians and Africans does not support Polytopicity.
posted
In the Video Dr. Keita attempts to explain Polytopicity , by claiming that although the Melanesians and Africans look similar they are not related because they speak different languages and possess disimilar genes.
Use of melanesians and Africans to exemplify Polytopicity was a bad analogy, because Africans and Melanesians are not only Negroes, they also share genes, placenames and language.
There is constant changes in the terminology for haplogroups as researchers attempt to imply that Africans carry one set of genes, and other populations outside Africa carry a different and unique set of genes. Although this is the case in many cases the populations are carrying African genes--whoes name has been changed to erase any unity between Sub-Saharan Africa and everyone else.
For example, Africans and Melanesians share haplogroups.
In fact, they also share common placenames. Shared place names in Melanesia suggest that the Melanesians recently came to the Pacific from Africa, as claimed by the Fijians.
The Melanesians probably belonged to the Niger-Congo and Dravidian speaking communities that formerly lived in the Sahara-Sahel region until 5-6kya. The Melanesians formerly lived in Africa and/or South China/Southeast Asia before they sailed to the Pacific Islans, probably as part of the Lapita migrations.
In figure 3 we see cognate Mande and Melanesian terms for vase, pot, arrow, cattle/ox, and fish. They also shared agricultural terms as well
Polynesian English Manding *talun fallow, land daa *tanem to plant daa *suluq torch, flame suu *kuDen cooking pot,bowl ku
As you can see the Melanesians and Africans are not only negroid they also share genes, placenames and culture terms. Obviously, use of Melanesians and Africans does not support Polytopicity.
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
Printer-friendly view of this topic