Some people claim that they have seen Olmec figures that look like contemporary native Americans. This may be true but practically all of the Olmec figures look African. At the following site I compare the Mayan type and the African type: http://www.geocities.com/olmec982000/olwrit.htm.htm
Many contemporary Mexicans look like Africans or Blacks because of the slave trade, which brought hundreds of thousands of Africans to Mexico to work in the mines and perform other task for their masters. A Cursory examination of these pictures of the Maya show that the ancient Maya look nothing like the Olmecs. How do they explain the fact that the Olmec look nothing like the Mayan people, if the Olmec were “indigenous” people they talk about.
Moreover, just because Africans may have come to America with Columbus, does not prove that they were not here before Columbus. Yet, subscription to these theories is logical, but logical assurance alone, is not good science.
Logically we could say that because Amerindians live in the Olmec heartland today, they may have lived in these areas 3000 years ago. But, the evidence found by Swadesh, an expert on the Mayan languages, of a new linguistic group invading the Olmec heartland 3000 years ago; and the lack of congruence between Olmec and Mayan art completely falsifies the conjectures of the Amerindian origin of the Olmec theorists. The opposite theory, an African origin for the Olmecs, deserves testing.
Some researchers claim that there is no scientific basis for the ability of African people to have remained unabsorbed in America. This is totally false there are many reports of Black tribes living in America when Europeans arrived in the New World.
The scientific evidence supports the African origin and perpetuation of an Olmec civilization in Mesoamerica from 1200 BC, up to around 400 AD. Let’s examine this theory. My hypothesis is that the Olmec people were Africans. There are five variables that support this theorem. They are: the following variables: 1) African scripts found during archaeological excavation; 2) the Malinke-Bambara origin of the Mayan term for writing; 3) cognate iconographic representations of African and Olmec personages; 4) the influence of Malinke-Bambara cultural and linguistic features on historic Mesoamerican populations; and 5) the presence of African skeletal material excavated from Olmec graves in addition to many other variables. The relation between these five variables or a combination of these variables explains the African origin of the Olmecs.
Let’s begin with the skeletal evidence. Some researchers maintain that the African was not indigenous to America. Although you make this claim you fail to acknowledge that in addition to Wiercinski’ analysis of the Olmec skeletons, many other researchers including C.C. Marquez, Estudios arqueologicos y ethnografico (Madrid,1920), Roland B. Dixon, The racial history of Man (N.Y.,1923) and Ernest Hooton, Up from the Ape (N.Y.,1931) and the Luzia remains make it clear that Africans were in the Americas before the native Americans crossed the Bearing Sea.
Supporters of the Native American origin of the Olmecs speak of people being absorbed by the Native Americans. Yet we know from the expansion of the Europeans in the Western Hemisphere, Eventhough the Native Americans outnumbered these people, they are in decline while the Europeans have prospered and multiplied.
Dr. Wiercinski (1972) claims that the some of the Olmecs were of African origin. He supports this claim with skeletal evidence from several Olmec sites where he found skeletons that were analogous to the West African type black. Wiercinski discovered that 13.5 percent of the skeletons from Tlatilco and 4.5 percent of the skeletons from Cerro de las Mesas were Africoid (Rensberger,1988; Wiercinski, 1972; Wiercinski & Jairazbhoy 1975).
Diehl and Coe (1995, 12) of Harvard University have made it clear that until a skeleton of an African is found on an Olmec site he will not accept the art evidence that the were Africans among the Olmecs. This is rather surprising because Constance Irwin and Dr. Wiercinski (1972) have both reported that skeletal remains of Africans have been found in Mexico. Constance Irwin, in Fair Gods and Stone Faces, says that anthropologist see "distinct signs of Negroid ancestry in many a New World skull...."
Dr. Wiercinski (1972) claims that some of the Olmecs were of African origin. He supports this claim with skeletal evidence from several Olmec sites where he found skeletons that were analogous to the West African type black. Many Olmec skulls show cranial deformations (Pailles, 1980), yet Wiercinski (1972b) was able to determine the ethnic origins of the Olmecs. Marquez (1956, 179-80) made it clear that a common trait of the African skulls found in Mexico include marked prognathousness ,prominent cheek bones are also mentioned. Fronto-occipital deformation among the Olmec is not surprising because cranial deformations was common among the Mande speaking people until fairly recently (Desplanges, 1906).
Many African skeletons have been found in Mexico. Carlo Marquez (1956, pp.179-180) claimed that these skeletons indicated marked pronathousness and prominent cheek bones.
Wiercinski found African skeletons at the Olmec sites of Monte Alban, Cerro de las Mesas and Tlatilco. Morley, Brainerd and Sharer (1989) said that Monte Alban was a colonial Olmec center (p.12).
Diehl and Coe (1996) admitted that the inspiration of Olmec Horizon A, common to San Lorenzo's iniitial phase has been found at Tlatilco. Moreover, the pottery from this site is engraved with Olmec signs.
According to Wiercinski (1972b) Africans represented more than 13.5 percent of the skeletal remains found at Tlatilco and 4.5 percent of the Cerro remains (see Table 2). Wiercinski (1972b) studied a total of 125 crania from Tlatilco and Cerro.
There were 38 males and 62 female crania in the study from Tlatilco and 18 males and 7 females from Cerro. Whereas 36 percent of the skeletal remains were of males, 64 percent were women (Wiercinski, 1972b).
To determine the racial heritage of the ancient Olmecs, Dr. Wiercinski (1972b) used classic diagnostic traits determined by craniometric and cranioscopic methods. These measurements were then compared to a series of three crania sets from Poland, Mongolia and Uganda to represent the three racial categories of mankind.
In Table 1, we have the racial composition of the Olmec skulls. The only European type recorded in this table is the Alpine group which represents only 1.9 percent of the crania from Tlatilco. Table 1.Olmec Races Racial Type Tlatilco Norm Percent Cerro de Mesas Norm Percent Subpacific Dongolan Subainuid Pacific Armenoid Armenoid-Bushman Anatolian Alpine Ainuid Ainuid-Arctic Laponoid-Equatorial Pacific-Equatorial
The other alleged "white" crania from Wiercinski's typology of Olmec crania, represent the Dongolan (19.2 percent), Armenoid (7.7 percent), Armenoid-Bushman (3.9 percent) and Anatolian (3.9 percent). The Dongolan, Anatolian and Armenoid terms are euphemisms for the so-called "Brown Race" "Dynastic Race", "Hamitic Race",and etc., which racist Europeans claimed were the founders of civilization in Africa.
Poe (1997), Keita (1993,1996), Carlson and Gerven (1979)and MacGaffey (1970) have made it clear that these people were Africans or Negroes with so-called 'caucasian features' resulting from genetic drift and microevolution (Keita, 1996; Poe, 1997). This would mean that the racial composition of 26.9 percent of the crania found at Tlatilco and 9.1 percent of crania from Cerro de las Mesas were of African origin.
In Table 2, we record the racial composition of the Olmec according to the Wiercinski (1972b) study. The races recorded in this table are based on the Polish Comparative-Morphological School (PCMS). The PCMS terms are misleading. As mentioned earlier the Dongolan , Armenoid, and Equatorial groups refer to African people with varying facial features which are all Blacks. This is obvious when we look at the iconographic and sculptural evidence used by Wiercinski (1972b) to support his conclusions.
Wiercinski (1972b) compared the physiognomy of the Olmecs to corresponding examples of Olmec sculptures and bas-reliefs on the stelas. For example, Wiercinski (1972b, p.160) makes it clear that the clossal Olmec heads represent the Dongolan type. It is interesting to note that the emperical frequencies of the Dongolan type at Tlatilco is .231, this was more than twice as high as Wiercinski's theorectical figure of .101, for the presence of Dongolans at Tlatilco.
The other possible African type found at Tlatilco and Cerro were the Laponoid group. The Laponoid group represents the Austroloid-Melanesian type of (Negro) Pacific Islander, not the Mongolian type. If we add together the following percent of the Olmecs represented in Table 2, by the Laponoid (21.2%), Equatorial (13.5), and Armenoid (18.3) groups we can assume that at least 53 percent of the Olmecs at Tlatilco were Africans or Blacks. Using the same figures recorded in Table 2 for Cerro,we observe that 40.8 percent of these Olmecs would have been classified as Black if they lived in contemporary America.
Rossum (1996) has criticied the work of Wiercinski because he found that not only blacks, but whites were also present in ancient America. To support this view he (1) claims that Wiercinski was wrong because he found that Negro/Black people lived in Shang China, and 2) that he compared ancient skeletons to modern Old World people.
First, it was not surprising that Wiercinski found affinities between African and ancient Chinese populations, because everyone knows that many Negro/African /Oceanic skeletons (referred to as Loponoid by the Polish school) have been found in ancient China see: Kwang-chih Chang The Archaeology of ancient China (1976,1977, p.76,1987, pp.64,68). These Blacks were spread throughout Kwangsi, Kwantung, Szechwan, Yunnan and Pearl River delta.
Skeletons from Liu-Chiang and Dawenkou, early Neolithic sites found in China, were also Negro. Moreover, the Dawenkou skeletons show skull deformation and extraction of teeth customs, analogous to customs among Blacks in Polynesia and Africa.
This makes it clear that we can not ignore the evidence. I have tried to keep up with the literature in this field over the past 30 years and I would appreciate someone reproducing on this forum citations of the articles which have conclusively disconfirmed the skeletal evidence of Wiercinski.
The fact remains African skeletons were found in Mesoamerica. This archaeological evidence supports the view that the Olmec were predominately African when we examine the anthropological language used to describe the Olmec skeletons analyzed by Wiercinski. See: http://www.geocities.com/Tokyo/Bay/7051/Skeletal.htm
The genetic evidence supports the skeletal evidence that Africans have been in Mexico for thousands of years. The genetic evidence for Africans among the Mexicans is quite interesting. This evidence supports the skeletal evidence that Africans have lived in Mexico for thousands of years.
The foundational mtDNA lineages for Mexican Indians are lineages A, B, C and D.The frequencies of these lineages vary among population groups. For example, whereas lineages A,B and C were present among Maya at Quintana Roo, Maya at Copan lacked lineages A and B (Gonzalez-Oliver, et al, 2001). This supports Carolina Bonilla et al (2005) view that heterogeneity is a major characteristic of Mexican population.
Underhill, et al (1996) noted that:" One Mayan male, previously [has been] shown to have an African Y chromosome." This is very interesting because the Maya language illustrates a Mande substratum, in addition to African genetic markers. James l. Gutherie (2000) in a study of the HLAs in indigenous American populations, found that the Vantigen of the Rhesus system, considered to be an indication of African ancestry, among Indians in Belize and Mexico centers of Mayan civilization. Dr. Gutherie also noted that A*28 common among Africans has high frequencies among Eastern Maya. It is interesting to note that the Otomi, a Mexican group identified as being of African origin and six Mayan groups show the B Allele of the ABO system that is considered to be of African origin.
Some researchers claim that as many as seventy-five percent of the Mexicans have an African heritage (Green et al, 2000). Although this may be the case Cuevas (2004) says these Africans have been erased from history.
The admixture of Africans and Mexicans make it impossible to compare pictures of contemporary Mexicans and the Olmec. Due to the fact that 75% of the contemporary Mexicans have African genes you find that many of them look similar to the Olmecs whereas the ancient Maya did not.
In a discussion of the Mexican and African admixture in Mexico Lisker et al (1996) noted that the East Coast of Mexico had extensive admixture. The following percentages of African ancestry were found among East coast populations: Paraiso - 21.7%; El Carmen - 28.4% ;Veracruz - 25.6%; Saladero - 30.2%; and Tamiahua - 40.5%. Among Indian groups, Lisker et al (1996) found among the Chontal have 5% and the Cora .8% African admixture. The Chontal speak a Mayan language. According to Crawford et al. (1974), the mestizo population of Saltillo has 15.8% African ancestry, while Tlaxcala has 8% and Cuanalan 18.1%. The Olmecs built their civilization in the region of the current states of Veracruz and Tabasco. Now here again are the percentages of African ancestry according to Lisker et al (1996): Paraiso - 21.7% ; El Carmen - 28.4% ; Veracruz - 25.6% ; Saladero - 30.2% ; Tamiahua - 40.5%. Paraiso is in Tabasco and Veracruz is, of course, in the state of Veracruz. Tamiahua is in northern Veracruz. These areas were the first places in Mexico settled by the Olmecs. I'm not sure about Saladero and El Carmen.
Given the frequency of African admixture with the Mexicans a comparison of Olmec mask, statuettes and other artifacts show many resemblances to contemporary Mexican groups. As illustrated by the photo below.
But a comparison of Olmec figures with ancient Mayan figures , made before the importation of hundreds of thousands of slaves Mexico during the Atlantic Slave Trade show no resemblance at all to the Olmec figures.
Mayan Olmec Mayan
This does not mean that the Maya had no contact with the Africans. This results from the fact that we know the Maya obtained much of their culture, arts and writings from the Olmecs. And many of their gods, especially those associated with trade are of Africans. We also find some images of Blacks among Mayan art.
African ancestry has been found among indigenous groups that have had no historical contact with African slaves and thus support an African presence in America, already indicated by African skeletons among the Olmec people. Lisker et al, noted that “The variation of Indian ancestry among the studied Indians shows in general a higher proportion in the more isolated groups, except for the Cora, who are as isolated as the Huichol and have not only a lower frequency but also a certain degree of black admixture. The black admixture is difficult to explain because the Cora reside in a mountainous region away from the west coast”. Green et al (2000) also found Indians with African genes in North Central Mexico, including the L1 and L2 clusters. Green et al (2000) observed that the discovery of a proportion of African haplotypes roughly equivalent to the proportion of European haplotypes [among North Central Mexican Indians] cannot be explained by recent admixture of African Americans for the United States. This is especially the case for the Ojinaga area, which presently is, and historically has been largely isolated from U.S. African Americans. In the Ojinaga sample set, the frequency of African haplotypes was higher that that of European hyplotypes”.
•
References Carlson,D. and Van Gerven,D.P. (1979). Diffussion, biological determinism and bioculdtural adaptation in the Nubian corridor,American Anthropologist, 81, 561-580.
M.H. Crawford et al (1974).Human biology in Mexico II. A comparison of blood group, serum, and red cell enzyme frequencies and genetic distances of the Indian population of Mexico. Am. Phys. Anthropol, 41: 251-268.
Marco P. Hernadez Cuevas.(2004). African Mexicans and the discourse on Modern Mexico.Oxford: University Press.
James L. Guthrie, Human lymphocyte antigens:Apparent Afro-Asiatic, southern Asian and European HLAs in indigenous American populations. Retrieved 3/3/2006 at: http://www.neara.org/Guthrie/lymphocyteantigens02.htm
R. Lisker et al.(1996). Genetic structure of autochthonous populations of Meso-america:Mexico. Am. J. Hum Biol 68:395-404.
Desplagnes, M. (1906). Deux nouveau cranes humains de cites lacustres. L'Anthropologie, 17, 134-137.
Diehl, R. A., & Coe, M.D. (1995). "Olmec archaeology". In In Jill Guthrie (Ed.), Ritual and Rulership, (pp.11-25). The Art Museum: Princeton University Press.
Irwin,C.Fair Gods and Stone Faces.
Keita,S.O.Y. (1993). Studies and comments on ancient Egyptian biological relationships, History in Africa, 20, 129-131.
Keita,S.O.Y.& Kittles,R.A. (1997). The persistence of racial thinking and the myth of racial divergence, American Anthropologist, 99 (3), 534-544.
MacGaffey,W.(1970). Comcepts of race in Northeast Africa. In J.D. Fage and R.A. Oliver, Papers in African Prehistory (pp.99-115), Camridge: Cambridge University Press.
Marquez,C.(1956). Estudios arqueologicas y ethnograficas. Mexico.
Rensberger, B. ( September, 1988). Black kings of ancient America", Science Digest, 74-77 and 122.
Underhill,P.A.,Jin,L., Zemans,R., Oefner,J and Cavalli-Sforza,L.L.(1996, January). A pre-Columbian Y chromosome-specific transition and its implications for human evolutionary history, Proceedings of the National Academy of Science USA,93, 196-200.
Von Wuthenau, Alexander. (1980). Unexplained Faces in Ancient America, 2nd Edition, Mexico 1980.
Wiercinski, A.(1969). Affinidades raciales de algunas poblaiones antiquas de Mexico, Anales de INAH, 7a epoca, tomo II, 123-143.
Wiercinski,A. (1972). Inter-and Intrapopulational Racial Differentiation of Tlatilco, Cerro de Las Mesas, Teothuacan, Monte Alban and Yucatan Maya, XXXlX Congreso Intern. de Americanistas, Lima 1970 ,Vol.1, 231-252.
Wiercinski,A. (1972b). An anthropological study on the origin of "Olmecs", Swiatowit ,33, 143-174.
Wiercinski, A. & Jairazbhoy, R.A. (1975) "Comment", The New Diffusionist,5 (18),5.
• ...
Posted by rasol (Member # 4592) on 07 March, 2006 03:29 PM:
quote:Some people claim that they have seen Olmec figures that look like contemporary native Americans. This may be true but practically all of the Olmec figures look African. At the following site I compare the Mayan type and the African type
Many southern Asians, Melanesians, MicroNesians, Polynesians and Australians resemble Africans - and they are closer geographically and genetically to South Americans than *any* African group.
Can you tell us why these peoples 'could not' be among the forebearers of the Olmec .... yet somehow West Africans are a better candidate?
Also, your bibliographic citations are misleading as usual - as many of them, including Keita and Ehret do not subscribe to your theory.
Posted by Doug M (Member # 7650) on 07 March, 2006 03:55 PM:
Mr. Winters seems to be refusing to acknowledge that features are due to human adaptation to the environment. Therefore, people in the "subtropical belt" around the world have the same features. Look at a map of the earth, identify the subtropical belt and you will find people with similar features around the globe. This has NOTHING to do with direct, recent migration from Africa.
I wish I could get this old picture book from the seventies or eighties showing color photographs of various tribes in the Amazon. They looked EXACTLY like the Olmec heads, had dark skin, BIG lips, BIG noses and werent the LEAST bit African. They were much closer than the images of modern Amazonians in this thread. In fact, I have had a hard time finding such photos on the net.
Posted by SidiRom (Member # 10364) on 07 March, 2006 04:26 PM:
And again, he chooses to acknowledge anachronistic studies by people with flawed methodologies.
If Wiercinski was sooooo accurate (he tried dividing everyon into three races, and his methodology was outdated even in his day), why isn't anyone paying attention to his claims on Egypt?
After all, Wiercinski stated that the Indigenous (but not Olmec) remains were 14% Afrocoid, and he also stated, using the same flawed methodology that Egyptians were 75% Caucasoid.
You can't have it both ways Clyde. Either the methodology was seriously flawed (everyone raise their hands), or Olmecs had some Africans and Egyptians had a ton of Middle Easterners or whatever other group people called 'caucasian' in all these stupid racial studies.
Posted by SidiRom (Member # 10364) on 07 March, 2006 04:27 PM:
Posted by RU2religious (Member # 4547) on 07 March, 2006 04:52 PM:
quote:Originally posted by Clyde Winters: .....................
Dr. Wiercinski (1972) claims that the some of the Olmecs were of African origin. He supports this claim with skeletal evidence from several Olmec sites where he found skeletons that were analogous to the West African type black. Wiercinski discovered that 13.5 percent of the skeletons from Tlatilco and 4.5 percent of the skeletons from Cerro de las Mesas were Africoid (Rensberger,1988; Wiercinski, 1972; Wiercinski & Jairazbhoy 1975).
Diehl and Coe (1995, 12) of Harvard University have made it clear that until a skeleton of an African is found on an Olmec site he will not accept the art evidence that the were Africans among the Olmecs. This is rather surprising because Constance Irwin and Dr. Wiercinski (1972) have both reported that skeletal remains of Africans have been found in Mexico. Constance Irwin, in Fair Gods and Stone Faces, says that anthropologist see "distinct signs of Negroid ancestry in many a New World skull...."
Dr. Wiercinski (1972) claims that some of the Olmecs were of African origin. He supports this claim with skeletal evidence from several Olmec sites where he found skeletons that were analogous to the West African type black. Many Olmec skulls show cranial deformations (Pailles, 1980), yet Wiercinski (1972b) was able to determine the ethnic origins of the Olmecs. Marquez (1956, 179-80) made it clear that a common trait of the African skulls found in Mexico include marked prognathousness ,prominent cheek bones are also mentioned. Fronto-occipital deformation among the Olmec is not surprising because cranial deformations was common among the Mande speaking people until fairly recently (Desplanges, 1906).
Many African skeletons have been found in Mexico. Carlo Marquez (1956, pp.179-180) claimed that these skeletons indicated marked pronathousness and prominent cheek bones.
Wiercinski found African skeletons at the Olmec sites of Monte Alban, Cerro de las Mesas and Tlatilco. Morley, Brainerd and Sharer (1989) said that Monte Alban was a colonial Olmec center (p.12).
Diehl and Coe (1996) admitted that the inspiration of Olmec Horizon A, common to San Lorenzo's iniitial phase has been found at Tlatilco. Moreover, the pottery from this site is engraved with Olmec signs.
According to Wiercinski (1972b) Africans represented more than 13.5 percent of the skeletal remains found at Tlatilco and 4.5 percent of the Cerro remains (see Table 2). Wiercinski (1972b) studied a total of 125 crania from Tlatilco and Cerro.
There were 38 males and 62 female crania in the study from Tlatilco and 18 males and 7 females from Cerro. Whereas 36 percent of the skeletal remains were of males, 64 percent were women (Wiercinski, 1972b).
To determine the racial heritage of the ancient Olmecs, Dr. Wiercinski (1972b) used classic diagnostic traits determined by craniometric and cranioscopic methods. These measurements were then compared to a series of three crania sets from Poland, Mongolia and Uganda to represent the three racial categories of mankind.
...................
...The admixture of Africans and Mexicans make it impossible to compare pictures of contemporary Mexicans and the Olmec. Due to the fact that 75% of the contemporary Mexicans have African genes you find that many of them look similar to the Olmecs whereas the ancient Maya did not.
In a discussion of the Mexican and African admixture in Mexico Lisker et al (1996) noted that the East Coast of Mexico had extensive admixture. The following percentages of African ancestry were found among East coast populations: Paraiso - 21.7%; El Carmen - 28.4% ;Veracruz - 25.6%; Saladero - 30.2%; and Tamiahua - 40.5%. Among Indian groups, Lisker et al (1996) found among the Chontal have 5% and the Cora .8% African admixture. The Chontal speak a Mayan language. According to Crawford et al. (1974), the mestizo population of Saltillo has 15.8% African ancestry, while Tlaxcala has 8% and Cuanalan 18.1%. The Olmecs built their civilization in the region of the current states of Veracruz and Tabasco. Now here again are the percentages of African ancestry according to Lisker et al (1996): Paraiso - 21.7% ; El Carmen - 28.4% ; Veracruz - 25.6% ; Saladero - 30.2% ; Tamiahua - 40.5%. Paraiso is in Tabasco and Veracruz is, of course, in the state of Veracruz. Tamiahua is in northern Veracruz. These areas were the first places in Mexico settled by the Olmecs. I'm not sure about Saladero and El Carmen.
Given the frequency of African admixture with the Mexicans a comparison of Olmec mask, statuettes and other artifacts show many resemblances to contemporary Mexican groups. As illustrated by the photo below.
But a comparison of Olmec figures with ancient Mayan figures , made before the importation of hundreds of thousands of slaves Mexico during the Atlantic Slave Trade show no resemblance at all to the Olmec figures.
Mayan Olmec Mayan
This does not mean that the Maya had no contact with the Africans. This results from the fact that we know the Maya obtained much of their culture, arts and writings from the Olmecs. And many of their gods, especially those associated with trade are of Africans. We also find some images of Blacks among Mayan art.
African ancestry has been found among indigenous groups that have had no historical contact with African slaves and thus support an African presence in America, already indicated by African skeletons among the Olmec people. Lisker et al, noted that “The variation of Indian ancestry among the studied Indians shows in general a higher proportion in the more isolated groups, except for the Cora, who are as isolated as the Huichol and have not only a lower frequency but also a certain degree of black admixture. The black admixture is difficult to explain because the Cora reside in a mountainous region away from the west coast”. Green et al (2000) also found Indians with African genes in North Central Mexico, including the L1 and L2 clusters. Green et al (2000) observed that the discovery of a proportion of African haplotypes roughly equivalent to the proportion of European haplotypes [among North Central Mexican Indians] cannot be explained by recent admixture of African Americans for the United States. This is especially the case for the Ojinaga area, which presently is, and historically has been largely isolated from U.S. African Americans. In the Ojinaga sample set, the frequency of African haplotypes was higher that that of European hyplotypes”.
..........
...
Ok am I to believe that most people in this room think that this information is based off Afrocentric idealisms?
Secondly, if the West Africans showed Columbus how to arrive to the America's in his 51 day voyage then why is it so hard to believe that the Africans made homes in the Americas? Secondly, Columbus nephew saw African in Central America which acknowledges the fact that their were Africans here.
Now were they Olmecs? I don't know yet the art of the Olmecs favor that of West Africans.
Were their other groups of people capable of finding the Americas? Of course~ Could the Olmecs be a different set of people? Of Course~ but y do we X out the possiblity of African Olmecs being that it can be historically proven that the West Africans have been traveling to the Americas long before a Columbus; possibly thousands of years prior?
I'm not a Afrocentric nor Eurocentric but I do believe in the absolute truth without bias. With this being said:
Can it be proven factually that the Olmecs were not *edited* Africans given that a high percent of Mexicans do carry African genes?
In conclusion, it seems as though we have become bias in assessing information when it comes from one who proclaims himself/herself Afrocentric when it fact some of the information may have positive outcomes... never the less I am currently doing research on this subject as well... I'm still learning
Posted by Clyde Winters (Member # 10129) on 07 March, 2006 05:10 PM:
rureligious quote: __________________________________________________________________ Can it be proven factually that the Olmecs were not black given that a high percent of Mexicans do carry African genes? _______________________________________________________________________
The skeletal evidence makes it clear that many of the Olmec were West Africans. The comparison of Olmec and Mayan artifacts make it clear that they did not look alike. Conclusion, many Mexicans mixed with Africans, but many Olmecs were already West African in origin when they first settled America.
Ancient Mayan and Olmec people did not look alike.
....
Posted by Hotep2u (Member # 9820) on 07 March, 2006 05:24 PM:
Greetings:
Doug M are you claiming this study is wrong?
Green et al (2000) also found Indians with African genes in North Central Mexico, including the L1 and L2 clusters. Green et al (2000) observed that the discovery of a proportion of African haplotypes roughly equivalent to the proportion of European haplotypes [among North Central Mexican Indians] cannot be explained by recent admixture of African Americans for the United States. This is especially the case for the Ojinaga area, which presently is, and historically has been largely isolated from U.S. African Americans. In the Ojinaga sample set, the frequency of African haplotypes was higher that that of European hyplotypes”.
Racism will not stop the Afrikans from uncovering our history, so all those children of Hitler who are trying to distort the truth you are only wasting your time.
Christopher Columbus made it clear that Afrikans were already here.
Doug M can you explain why broad features reflect environmental adaptation and not Ancestral lineage?
Doug M are you implying that if a someone of the European ancestral lineage relocates to a Equatorial region then they will develop broad features,dark skin and wooly hair?
Doug M are you telling me that the statues of an Elephant found amongst the Olmec artifacts means the native Americans were dreaming up animals that are NOT native to South America?
How did the Olmecs know of the Elephant?
Olmecs were Afrikans this should not be a problem to anyone except if you are are RACIST NAZI who subscribes to the LIES and Racist myth that Afrikans didn't contribute to Humanity, then if you are a RACIST NAZI who supports ignorant LIARS then you have a problem because Olmecs were not Aryans. Olmecs were black people who worked together with native Americans to build a great civilization which was later destroyed by you know who.
Only a racist would have a problem associating the Afrikan contribution to a predominantly native American Culture located in South America, This debate should never have occured because the Afrikan evidence is well documented. No one is claiming a culture that was predominantly native American though we cannot ignore the Afrikan contribution either.
Hotep
Posted by alTakruri (Member # 10195) on 07 March, 2006 05:42 PM:
Hi everybody! I'm a 100% Xingu native American from Brazil. Did one of you say the Olmec colosal cabezas don't look native American? Posted by Clyde Winters (Member # 10129) on 07 March, 2006 05:50 PM:
altakruri __________________________________________________________________ Hi everybody! I'm a 100% Xingu native American from Brazil. Did one of you say the Olmec colosal cabezas don't look native American? http://www.ngo.grida.no/ngo/nomijour/projects/caju/jaguarpaint.jpg _______________________________________________________ This personage looks more Polynesian than African.
But it is not surprising that many Brazilians look African. James L. Guthrie,in Human lymphocyte antigens:Apparent Afro-Asiatic, southern Asian and European HLAs in indigenous American populations. Retrieved 3/3/2006 at: http://www.neara.org/Guthrie/lymphocyteantigens02.htm
discussed the fact that many Brazilians have West African genes.
......
Posted by rasol (Member # 4592) on 07 March, 2006 06:06 PM:
quote:Originally posted by alTakruri: Hi everybody! I'm a 100% Xingu native American from Brazil. Did one of you say the Olmec colosal cabezas don't look native American?
Look at that straight red hair too, and lack of prognathism in the jaw. Pure Medit Kaukazoid if you ask me. Definitely related to Kenniwick man.
ps - race typologies are dead, some just don't know it yet.
Posted by Yonis (Member # 7684) on 07 March, 2006 06:10 PM:
Hotep2u wrote:
quote:Doug M are you implying that if a someone of the European ancestral lineage relocates to a Equatorial region then they will develop broad features,dark skin and wooly hair?
This is exactly your problem, you use Europeans as a benchmark for everything in most of your argument,(you are giving them to much credit) kinda seems as if they are your ultimate point, I could almost mistake you of worshiping them.
quote:Olmecs were Afrikans this should not be a problem to anyone except if you are are RACIST NAZI who subscribes to the LIES and Racist myth that Afrikans didn't contribute to Humanity , then if you are a RACIST NAZI who supports ignorant LIARS then you have a problem because Olmecs were not Aryans
This is the worse case of inferiority complex
"olmecs were not Aryans" duh! Posted by rasol (Member # 4592) on 07 March, 2006 06:20 PM:
quote:Originally posted by Hotep2u: Greetings:
Doug M are you claiming this study is wrong?
Green et al (2000) also found Indians with African genes in North Central Mexico, including the L1 and L2 clusters. G Hotep
Have you read the actual study?
I have.
Winters is misleading you ---> A G A I N.
When are you going to learn, Hotep?
I could post from the study but I won't.
I think you need to research for yourself the difference between what these studies actually say...and Winters distortions of them.
Only then will you stop falling for his nonsense - or maybe not, but either way - it's up to you.
Posted by alTakruri (Member # 10195) on 07 March, 2006 06:33 PM:
Of course many Brasilians outside the rainforest share HLA's with Africans. But can you match up Xingu "junk" DNA with Mande "junk" DNA?
quote:Originally posted by Clyde Winters:
But it is not surprising that many Brazilians look African. James L. Guthrie,in Human lymphocyte antigens:Apparent Afro-Asiatic, southern Asian and European HLAs in indigenous American populations. Retrieved 3/3/2006 at: http://www.neara.org/Guthrie/lymphocyteantigens02.htm
discussed the fact that many Brazilians have West African genes. [/b]
......
Posted by Clyde Winters (Member # 10129) on 07 March, 2006 06:43 PM:
quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Originally posted by Hotep2u: Greetings:
Doug M are you claiming this study is wrong?
Green et al (2000) also found Indians with African genes in North Central Mexico, including the L1 and L2 clusters. G Hotep --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Have you read the actual study?
I have.
Winters is misleading you ---> A G A I N.
When are you going to learn, Hotep?
I could post from the study but I won't.
I think you need to research for yourself the difference between what these studies actually say...and Winters distortions of them.
Only then will you stop falling for his nonsense - or maybe not, but either way - it's up to you. _____________________________________________________________________
Lance D. Green,1,* James N. Derr,2 and Alec Knight1, mtDNA Affinities of the Peoples of North-Central Mexico
Of 24 non Native American samples, 10 were identified as African haplotypes (table 4). Six samples (C66, D47, N18, P1, N16, and O2S) had the HpaI site present at np 3592. Three of those samples (P1, N16, and N18) had an A at np 16390 and belong to haplogroup L2, thus suggesting that other samples (C66 and D47) are part of haplogroup L1. Of the 87 samples sequenced, only P1, N16, and N18 had an A at np 16390. Sequence data for sample O2S were not obtained. Samples identified here as haplogroup L1 or haplogroup L2 shared HV1-sequence polymorphisms with many African samples belonging to cluster L1 and cluster L2, respectively, reported by Watson et al. (1997).
.....
Posted by Clyde Winters (Member # 10129) on 07 March, 2006 06:46 PM:
altakruri quote: __________________________________________________________________ Of course many Brasilians outside the rainforest share HLA's with Africans. But can you match up Xingu "junk" DNA with Mande "junk" DNA?
Guthrie was talking about Brazilian Indians. Do you know of any research on the Xingu mtDNA?
Posted by alTakruri (Member # 10195) on 07 March, 2006 06:54 PM:
Yes I see that his A*31 list has some rainforest folk in it. But don't ask me for Xingu mtDNA studies, you're the one who champions Mande lineage in south of the border Indians. I just want to know if you have any genetic support for lineages not antigens.
I singled out peoples along the Xingu because that's where I recall seeing lowest miscegenated natives who have dark brown skin, broad noses with prominent nostrils, and thick lips who in my opinion resemble some of the "African" people in Olmec artwork.
However, the Olmec art isn't monotypic and neither are Xingu peoples.
quote:A*31 (13.8%). A*31 is a subtype of A*19 that is present in at least 28 of 32 American samples, at frequencies of up to 65%, with the highest levels coming from Brazil. For some reason, distributions of A*19 were mapped but not tabulated by CS. A*31 values for the Atacama and Araucano are shown as “blanks” but may be determined from levels indicated on the A*19 map combined with the missing values for A*31 needed to raise the HLA-A total to 100%. In America, A*31 appears to be absent only from the Bari and the Greenland Eskimos. Frequencies for the Eskimo in general average only 2% (no data from Canadian Eskimos) and for North American Amerinds only 7 ± 3%. World frequencies are generally low outside of South America and parts of northern Africa. A*31 probably marks remnants of an ancient Eurasian population whose legacy still is significantly displayed among the Basques, the Ainu, and North Africans. However, the surprisingly high frequencies in the Mande, Tigre, and Tuareg samples could be the result of early intercourse between Brazil and Africa.
quote:Originally posted by Clyde Winters: altakruri quote: __________________________________________________________________ Of course many Brasilians outside the rainforest share HLA's with Africans. But can you match up Xingu "junk" DNA with Mande "junk" DNA?
Thanks for nothing and too little to late, as the link is as broken as is the logic of citing it in support of African Olmec.
Unfortunately, the link below works, so discussants can read the full study for themselves: http://www.journals.uchicago.edu/AJHG/journal/issues/v66n3/990202/990202.web.pdf ^ Rightly or wrongly - this study attributes all African agency in Mexico to 16th century Spanish slavery - a singular hypothesis Lance Greene hammers home at every opportunity - and exactly the opposite of what Winters intends.
THAT is what is contrasted with recent African American ancestry, not any suggestion African origin of Olmec - as Hotep is mislead into imagining.
Posted by alTakruri (Member # 10195) on 07 March, 2006 07:56 PM:
In a way Dr. Winters unwittingly subscribes to Oceanics being Olmec far forebearers. See below where he admits prehistoric Oceanics first became American indigenees and way before there were any Mande. Only thing is he mislabels the prehistoric first settlers, calling them African.
Logically if the Luiza folk were there first then they have to be the "Native Americans." It's illogical to label later crossers over Beringia as the Native Americans if they haven't even set foot in the Americas yet at all.
quote:Originally posted by Dr. Winters:
Let’s begin with the skeletal evidence. Some researchers maintain that the African was not indigenous to America. Although you make this claim you fail to acknowledge that [. . . .] the Luzia remains make it clear that Africans were in the Americas before the native Americans crossed the Bearing Sea.
quote:Originally posted by rasol:
quote:Some people claim that they have seen Olmec figures that look like contemporary native Americans. This may be true but practically all of the Olmec figures look African. At the following site I compare the Mayan type and the African type
Many southern Asians, Melanesians, MicroNesians, Polynesians and Australians resemble Africans - and they are closer geographically and genetically to South Americans than *any* African group.
Can you tell us why these peoples 'could not' be among the forebearers of the Olmec .... yet somehow West Africans are a better candidate?
Posted by Clyde Winters (Member # 10129) on 07 March, 2006 08:27 PM:
altakruri quote: ___________________________________________________________________ Logically if the Luiza folk were there first then they have to be "Native Americans." It's illogical to label later crossers over Beringia as the Native Americans if they haven't even set foot in the Americas yet at all. __________________________________________________________________________
If I remember correctly it was claimed that Luiza could have been an African or Black Pacific Islander.
Posted by Myra Wysinger (Member # 10126) on 07 March, 2006 08:55 PM:
quote:Originally posted by Clyde Winters:
If I remember correctly it was claimed that Luiza could have been an African or Black Pacific Islander.
"Lapa Vermelha IV Hominid 1, or "Luzia" . . . . exhibited an undisputed morphological affinity firstly with Africans and secondly with South Pacific populations."
All of this has nothing to do with Egypt and/or Egyptology. Why even go here. Nevertheless...
It is my understanding that the University of Mexico, and quite possibly other institutions of higher learning in Mexico, is/are examining the quite plausable evidence of Africans in the early period of Mexican history. It is something that is taken quite seriously. Does anyone have any more information on this?
Posted by rasol (Member # 4592) on 07 March, 2006 09:05 PM:
quote:Originally posted by alTakruri: In a way Dr. Winters unwittingly subscribes to Oceanics being Olmec far forebearers. See below where he admits prehistoric Oceanics first became American indigenees and way before there were any Mande.
Yes - he knows.
Posted by Clyde Winters (Member # 10129) on 07 March, 2006 09:38 PM:
myra quote: _________________________________________________________________ quote:Originally posted by Clyde Winters:
If I remember correctly it was claimed that Luiza could have been an African or Black Pacific Islander.
"Lapa Vermelha IV Hominid 1, or "Luzia" . . . . exhibited an undisputed morphological affinity firstly with Africans and secondly with South Pacific populations."
Reference:
Morphological Affinities of the Earliest Known American ___________________________________________________________________________
Thanks.
Posted by alTakruri (Member # 10195) on 07 March, 2006 09:52 PM:
That was by the first three canonical variates. But overall they reported
quote: In these several comparisons, multivariate statistical analyses have demonstrated a strong morphological similarity between the oldest Americans and modern Australians and only a slightly weaker morphological similarity to modern Africans.
. . . .
...the first Australians and the first Americans shared a common ancestral population in mainland Asia. This ancestral population could well be represented by hominids similar to the Zhoukoudian Upper Cave people (Kamminga and Wright, 1988; Wright, 1995; Neves and Pucciarelli, 1998) and its ultimate origin can be traced back to Africa. ... If our inferences are correct, the Americas could ultimately be seen as part of the first expansion of anatomically modern humans out of Africa, which started during the beginning of the Upper Pleistocene. Recent acceptance of Late Pleistocene dates for the occupation of the site of Monte Verde, Chile (Meltzer et al., 1997), now suggests that populations colonizing the New World may have crossed the Bering Strait earlier than previously thought. This makes our suggestion still more plausible.
In either case it's not exclusively African, nor is it post protoholocene, nor is it across the Atlantic Ocean.
I don't have a problem with West African contacts with early America. What I don't believe is that: 1). Africans comprised the indiginees 2). the Olmecs were solely African or majority African.
Americas "junk" DNA so far shows little relation to Africa. The Olmecs had influential African visitors but those visitors by no means originated Olmec civilization or were the only Olmec or even the majority Olmec population.
To determine time of origin of African "junk" DNA in Mexican samples one has to know the sources of the Africans who were enslaved there and if Mande were among those shipped there.
If those sources were other than from where enslaved Mande were sold or stolen it strengthens the pre-Columbian case for permanent settlement or colonization if we find Mande related haplogroups. But if Mande were transported to Mexico with any regularity it becomes very complicated to establish genetic evidence to support pre-Columbian settlement or miscegenation between merchant traders and their female clientele.
If no one else does it I will compose and post on positive African identified cultural items in the pre-Columbian Americas. Others have already shown the Conquistadore eye witness accounts of Africans conducting trade with IA's and living in their own seperated settlements.
I realize this is all off topic and has many readers scratching their heads but I didn't start it. I wish there was a way to pressure the phpbb folk to fix theNileValley forum where we had neat folders for many Africana type topics related Egyptology. Egypt is a subset of Africa.
quote:Originally posted by Myra Wysinger:
quote:Originally posted by Clyde Winters:
If I remember correctly it was claimed that Luiza could have been an African or Black Pacific Islander.
"Lapa Vermelha IV Hominid 1, or "Luzia" . . . . exhibited an undisputed morphological affinity firstly with Africans and secondly with South Pacific populations."
Posted by Clyde Winters (Member # 10129) on 07 March, 2006 10:03 PM:
altakruri quote: ____________________________________________________________________ Americas "junk" DNA so far shows little relation to Africa. The Olmecs had influential African visitors but those visitors by no means originated Olmec civilization or were the only Olmec or even the majority Olmec population. ______________________________________________________________________
This is pure speculation. Please present evidence supporting this claim. The Olmec art of the earliest period and skeletal remains show the Olmecs were the earliest civilization was dominated by Africans.
Posted by Hotep2u (Member # 9820) on 07 March, 2006 10:09 PM:
Greetings:
Rasol wrote:
quote: Thanks for nothing and too little to late, as the link is as broken as is the logic of citing it in support of African Olmec.
Unfortunately, the link below works, so discussants can read the full study for themselves: http://www.journals.uchicago.edu/AJHG/journal/issues/v66n3/990202/990202.web.pdf ^ Rightly or wrongly - this study attributes all African agency in Mexico to 16th century Spanish slavery - a singular hypothesis Lance Greene hammers home at every opportunity - and exactly the opposite of what Winters intends.
THAT is what is contrasted with recent African American ancestry, not any suggestion African origin of Olmec - as Hotep is mislead into imagining.
First rasol claims to have read the report, then claims the report doesn’t agree with Clyde Winters position as if we asked if the reports agreed with Clyde Winters position. Then rasol starts the “recent Afrikan ancestry” mumbo jumbo LOL. Why don’t you eurocentrics rename the continent of Africa while you’re at it, how about calling Europe Africa and switching the name of Africa to Europe. Then you can say Africans didn’t have any associations with Olmecs and Europeans are the Olmecs. How about that idea for a “Spin” Can someone explain the Elephant? How did the Olmecs have knowledge of the Elephant?
To all those who claim the Olmecs came from some where in the Pacific please tell me where exactly in the Pacific did the Olmecs come from?
DNA MANIPULATION IS REAL
This is the controversial findings that LIARS are trying to cover up
quote: The black admixture is difficult to explain because the Cora reside in a mountainous region away from the west coast”. Green et al (2000) also found Indians with African genes in North Central Mexico, including the L1 and L2 clusters. Green et al (2000) observed that the discovery of a proportion of African haplotypes roughly equivalent to the proportion of European haplotypes [among North Central Mexican Indians] cannot be explained by recent admixture of African Americans for the United States. This is especially the case for the Ojinaga area, which presently is, and historically has been largely isolated from U.S. African Americans. In the Ojinaga sample set, the frequency of African haplotypes was higher that that of European hyplotypes”.
Only a psychopath would try to associate all the Afrikan specific haplotypes to the Afrikan Holocaust. When Christopher Columbus made it clear that Afrikans were here when he arrived.
These DNA geneticist are going to destroy their field because of the falsehood that they are trying to pass off as truth, MARK MY WORDS. Afrocentrics will destroy the lies being spread by Eurocentrics LIARS and if the field of Genetics chooses to side with LIARS then Genetics will be destroyed in the process of removing the lies told against the AFRIKANS,MARK MY WORDS.
web pagehttp://farms.byu.edu/display.php?table=jbms&id=231&previous=L3B1YmxpY2F0aW9ucy9ib29rb2Ztb3Jtb252aWV3LnBocA==#Anchor-55-33053
For the moment many geneticists choose to simplify the confusion by talking about four Amerindian haplogroups--A, B, C, and D. (A haplogroup is composed of those descent lines that share the major characteristics in their mtDNA sequences.) Yet a significant "other" category remains beyond the accepted A-to-D set. A miscellany of odd mtDNA haplotypes have been dumped into this vague category, often because their presence in America is suspected to be due to the intrusion of European or black slave genes among American Indians in the last few generations . But that assumption may be wrong. From the "other" rubric a fifth haplogroup has now been extracted, called X. Haplogroup X has been found in the DNA of certain North American groups such as the Ojibwa of eastern Canada as well as in some very early American skeletons on this continent.
See all along these RACIST geneticist new that the Afrikan presence was already in South America yet they tried to cover it up, I AM NOT SURPRISED because liars will always be LIARS no matter what platform they stand on, LIES will always be told by LIARS.
rasol wrote:
quote: THAT is what is contrasted with recent African American ancestry, not any suggestion African origin of Olmec - as Hotep is mislead into imagining.
Intelligent people understand facts, while ignorant people don't,no need to imagine because the facts are SELF EVIDENT. I'm laughing at you Eurocentrics because you are fighting so desperately to cover up the TRUTH.
Hotep
Posted by Supercar (Member # 6477) on 08 March, 2006 12:32 AM:
quote:Originally posted by Hotep2u: Can someone explain the Elephant? How did the Olmecs have knowledge of the Elephant?
We've touched on this before. A claim was made on how this may well be the product of knowledge past on from generation to generation, since elephant-like creatures such as the 'mastodons' and the 'mammoth' once wandered in the region.
Posted by rasol (Member # 4592) on 08 March, 2006 06:48 AM:
We've all read it. The question was - had you read it before referencing it? You didn't answer. You still haven't. Why is that?
quote: then claims the report doesn’t agree with Clyde Winters position
It doesn't. He knows it and now you know it too. Sorry.
quote: Then rasol starts the “recent Afrikan ancestry” mumbo jumbo LOL.
Lol indeed, since "recent African American" ancestry comes from the citation in the report, that you cited, which constrasts between 'recent african american', and 16th century African slaves, yet you ridicule the verbiage in your own citation as "mumbo jumbo."
Odd, and too ironic that whenever you are pressed over matters of fact, that contradict ill conceived MIS-citations, you fall back on ridicule rhetoric.
Mumbo jumbo is actually a European racist ridicule of African spiritual beliefs.
It is pitiably ironic, and yet somehow fitting that you resort to same in defense of Winters' pseudo scholarship.
Sloppy scholardhip is the root of all evil in this case, add the source of its own demise.
quote:Why don’t you eurocentrics rename the continent of Africa while you’re at it, how about calling Europe Africa and switching the name of Africa to Europe.
Instead, why don't you stop whining, read the studies before citing them, and [then] address the study in question?
quote:Hotep asks: are you saying [Lance Greene's study] is wrong?
Answer: No, we are saying the study makes NO MENTION of Olmecs, attributes all African precense to slavery [mentioned a dozen time in the study], and you DIDN'T KNOW because you didn't read the study, you simply cite Winters on blind faith.
You fail to answer the above, and so now try to change the subject.......
Good luck with that.
Posted by rasol (Member # 4592) on 08 March, 2006 07:24 AM:
quote:Originally posted by Supercar:
quote:Originally posted by Hotep2u: Can someone explain the Elephant? How did the Olmecs have knowledge of the Elephant?
We've touched on this before. A claim was made on how this may well be the product of knowledge past on from generation to generation, since elephant-like creatures such as the 'mastodons' and the 'mammoth' once wandered in the region.
Correct, there is evidence that early Central Americans hunted the Mastodon, and worked their bones for art and or weapons.
Posted by yazid904 (Member # 7708) on 08 March, 2006 10:03 AM:
From a socio-cultural perspective, Mexico is know to have African roots in the south (Vera Cruz) along with Pilipino intermixture. These Africans, like the highland Indians preferred to stay isolated in the presence of Europeans becaue they knew they would have lost their souls. It seems that groups more prone to association (with the foreigner) gave up that isolation to be the man's whipping boy. The beginning of mestizaje.
The Caribs of St Vincent, The Afro-Caribs of Belize, Bush Negroes of Suriname, Palmares (Brazil), Cimarrones (Jamaica), etc sought isolation to preserve their integrity as a nation. In Mexico, it was more difficult so prabably the Afro-Mexican sought mountaneous areas as self preservation!
Northern Mexico of 1700 (now western and SW USA) was Indian and mestizo, and present Northern Mexico was inhospitable so their present location of Afro-Mexicans would mimic their roots on the African motherland.
Posted by Clyde Winters (Member # 10129) on 08 March, 2006 10:36 AM:
yazid904 _____________________________________________________________ The Caribs of St Vincent, The Afro-Caribs of Belize, Bush Negroes of Suriname, Palmares (Brazil), Cimarrones (Jamaica), etc sought isolation to preserve their integrity as a nation. In Mexico, it was more difficult so prabably the Afro-Mexican sought mountaneous areas as self preservation! ___________________________________________________________ There are some Black Mexicans on the Pacific coast who claim they were never slaves. The records show that these people also were not slaves. There are 70,000 of these Blacks living in Costa Chica. Bobby Vaugh said that they claim they landed in Mexcio as a result of a ship wreck.
.....
Posted by SEEKING (Member # 10105) on 08 March, 2006 11:37 AM:
The Caribs of St. Vincent and the Afro Caribs of Belize are one and the same. The ancestral land of the Afro Caribs [Garifunas]in Belize is St. Vincent.
They had 2 Carib wars with England. They were finally defeated after the death of their leader Paramount Chief, Chatoyer. They were then exile by the British from their homeland of St. Vincent to Central America.
Again, the Afro Caribs in Belize are the Garifunas from St. Vincent.
Posted by rasol (Member # 4592) on 08 March, 2006 12:44 PM:
quote:Originally posted by Clyde Winters: yazid904 _____________________________________________________________ The Caribs of St Vincent, The Afro-Caribs of Belize, Bush Negroes of Suriname, Palmares (Brazil), Cimarrones (Jamaica), etc sought isolation to preserve their integrity as a nation. In Mexico, it was more difficult so prabably the Afro-Mexican sought mountaneous areas as self preservation! ___________________________________________________________ There are some Black Mexicans on the Pacific coast who claim they were never slaves. The records show that these people also were not slaves. There are 70,000 of these Blacks living in Costa Chica. Bobby Vaugh said that they claim they landed in Mexcio as a result of a ship wreck.
.....
I agree that all Blacks in the Americas are not descendant of slaves [which is where i disagree with the Lance Greene study you cited].
It only needs to be added that all Blacks in the America's are not descendant from West Africa either.
As to the question of whether West Africans, or NIle Valley Africans ever sailed to the America's on voyages of exploration - I am open to evidence.
Posted by SidiRom (Member # 10364) on 08 March, 2006 01:29 PM:
quote:Originally posted by Clyde Winters: [QB] Some people claim that they have seen Olmec figures that look like contemporary native Americans. This may be true but practically all of the Olmec figures look African.
Not true at all. In fact, many look Asiatic, hence the Chinese people being as foolish in their claims as you are.
quote:At the following site I compare the Mayan type and the African type: http://www.geocities.com/olmec982000/olwrit.htm.htm Many contemporary Mexicans look like Africans or Blacks because of the slave trade, which brought hundreds of thousands of Africans to Mexico to work in the mines and perform other task for their masters.
quote:A Cursory examination of these pictures of the Maya show that the ancient Maya look nothing like the Olmecs. How do they explain the fact that the Olmec look nothing like the Mayan people, if the Olmec were “indigenous” people they talk about.
A cursory examination of multiple populations in North America will show a large variation in phenotypes. I guess migration patterns aren't something you considered at all.
I'm sure you can reference in which collection each picture is. Muhammad Ali? I guess the Irish made it to Africa along with the Africans to make his look. You are fetching. I showed plenty of faces in Native American populations that match those statues. At best you can say, SOme Native Americans have similar features to some Africans. Suprise, its called humanity.
quote:Moreover, just because Africans may have come to America with Columbus, does not prove that they were not here before Columbus. Yet, subscription to these theories is logical, but logical assurance alone, is not good science.
You have yet to show any sound evidence in artifacts, language, etc that they hads contact. So mere resemblance is wishful thinking.
quote: Logically we could say that because Amerindians live in the Olmec heartland today, they may have lived in these areas 3000 years ago. But, the evidence found by Swadesh, an expert on the Mayan languages, of a new linguistic group invading the Olmec heartland 3000 years ago; and the lack of congruence between Olmec and Mayan art completely falsifies the conjectures of the Amerindian origin of the Olmec theorists. The opposite theory, an African origin for the Olmecs, deserves testing.
I'm sure you can reference this claim as well, as all I have ever read shows Epi-Olmec evolved locally.
quote: Some researchers claim that there is no scientific basis for the ability of African people to have remained unabsorbed in America. This is totally false there are many reports of Black tribes living in America when Europeans arrived in the New World.
Nice try. Two errors in your judgment. One, the first people here were Spanish. Two they called people left and right 'moros' and called their temples 'mesquitas.' This is not a description of color. The later English called all people darker than them Black at various times. Finally, there are darker skinned populations of Natives that are not Black or African.
quote: The scientific evidence supports the African origin and perpetuation of an Olmec civilization in Mesoamerica from 1200 BC, up to around 400 AD.
Not really.
quote: Let’s examine this theory. My hypothesis is that the Olmec people were Africans. There are five variables that support this theorem. They are: the following variables: 1) African scripts found during archaeological excavation;
A claim that no other serious linguist has verified
quote: 2) the Malinke-Bambara origin of the Mayan term for writing;
See above
quote: 3) cognate iconographic representations of African and Olmec personages;
Translation: Some images look similar. Yeah, So do Dragons and Serpents all over the world.
quote: 4) the influence of Malinke-Bambara cultural and linguistic features on historic Mesoamerican populations;
Again a claim no serious scholar has backed you on.
quote: and 5) the presence of African skeletal material excavated from Olmec graves in addition to many other variables. The relation between these five variables or a combination of these variables explains the African origin of the Olmecs.
Your claims based on Wiercinski and his flawed anachronistic evidence? And of skeletons that aren't even Olmec? No Olmec crania have been found to this day. The skulls examined by Wiercinski were Classic period (AD 300-900) skulls found at Cerro de las Mesas, a post-Olmec site to the west of the Olmec zone.
quote: Let’s begin with the skeletal evidence. Some researchers maintain that the African was not indigenous to America. Although you make this claim you fail to acknowledge that in addition to Wiercinski’ analysis of the Olmec skeletons, many other researchers including C.C. Marquez, Estudios arqueologicos y ethnografico (Madrid,1920), Roland B. Dixon, The racial history of Man (N.Y.,1923) and Ernest Hooton, Up from the Ape (N.Y.,1931) and the Luzia remains make it clear that Africans were in the Americas before the native Americans crossed the Bearing Sea.
No they do not. They show that people with affinities to Australian Aborigines, etc made it here first. They are as related to Africans as the whole rest of the world.
quote: Supporters of the Native American origin of the Olmecs speak of people being absorbed by the Native Americans. Yet we know from the expansion of the Europeans in the Western Hemisphere, Eventhough the Native Americans outnumbered these people, they are in decline while the Europeans have prospered and multiplied.
Go look up germ warfare. Another reason why Olmecs could not be African. No indication of mass extinctions through disease. And no immunity to diseases that have existed in Africa since early times. No evidence of Sickle cell anemia, etc, etc, etc.
quote: There is skeletal evidence of Africans in Olmecland. The evidence of Wiercinski craniometrics have not been dissected and disputed.
Dissected, disputed and ridiculed. But like I said, if you want to claim Olmecs as 14% African and Egyptians as 75% Caucasian (Same flawed methodology) then so be it.
quote:http://www.geocities.com/Tokyo/Bay/7051/content.html Dr. Wiercinski (1972) claims that the some of the Olmecs were of African origin. He supports this claim with skeletal evidence from several Olmec sites where he found skeletons that were analogous to the West African type black. Wiercinski discovered that 13.5 percent of the skeletons from Tlatilco and 4.5 percent of the skeletons from Cerro de las Mesas were Africoid (Rensberger,1988; Wiercinski, 1972; Wiercinski & Jairazbhoy 1975).
Since you think Wiercinski knows his stuff :
[/quote]Several series of Pre-dynastic skulls and the pre-dynastic of first dynasties were investigated in Upper and Lower Egypt. It seems that all belong to the Caucasoid group and show a great similarity with the series of India. Nevertheless, certain amount of Negroid mixture was detected and Mongoloid but this does not exceed 25%.
Badarian population was of mixed origin, which is demonstrated by the simultaneous occurrence of gracile and very robust skulls.
These opinions about the heterogeneity of the Badarians had to be checked by the individual analysis of the material. This was attempted for the second Badarian series by A. Wiercinski,19 applying his own and Michalski's typological method. He found the Europoid (Caucasoid) element in 76 per cent, the Mongoloid element in 19.4 per cent and the Negroid element in 4.6 per cent. The assumed high share of the Mongoloid element, which is not easy to distinguish from the Negroid one in the skeletal material, is rather strange, and I could not find it during my own re-examination of the same material. Neither geographical nor historical circumstances suggest the presence of a strong Mongoloid admixture in the oldest settled population of Egypt and Middle East. Wierciniski's analysis, nevertheless, shows that about one quarter of the Badarian series was found to be of non-Europoid character.
19. A. Wiercinski, The Problem of Anthroposcopic Variations of Ancient Egyptians [/quote]
Posted by SidiRom (Member # 10364) on 08 March, 2006 01:30 PM:
The fact is Wiercinski has been critisized for his methodolgy even in his own lifetime.
quote:Wiercinski’s basic methodology is fundamentally flawed and grossly outdated. It was out dated years before he used it in the 1970’s and the passage of thirty years has not improved it. He wrote a long article in 1962 (years before his Olmec work) explaining this methodology:
Andrzej Wiercinski.1962. “The Racial Analysis of Human Populations in Relation to Their Ethnogenesis,” Current Anthropology 3(#1): 2-46. Together with article by Tadeusz Bielicki. “Some Possibilities for Estimating Inter Population Relationship on the Basis of Continuous Traits”
*Current Anthropology* sends articles to a number of authorities internationally for review and publishes their comments. None of the commenters supported Wiercinski’s paper. The thrust of many comments was that Poland had been isolated from the rest of the world as a consequence of WWII and was using concepts and methodologies that had long been abandoned by the rest of the world’s physical anthropologists.
Tlatilco is not strictly an Olmec site. There are NO skeletons of any kind in the central Olmec sites of San Lorenzo, La Venta, and Tres Zapotes. Wiercinski whom Afrocentrics love to cite never said that *African skeletons* were found in Tlatilco.
Wiercinski (1972) loaded the dice by forcing the crania he studied into the procrustean bed of being either White, Black, or Yellow, according to the Polish School of Anthropology-- there was no other choice. The Mesoamerican series fell into an intermediate position but overlapped at the extremes with his Mongolian series, his Polish series, or his Ugandan series. Wiercinski classified any overlaps as belonging to one of the 3 “big” races. He further subdivided the skulls into racial types. He found that the 52 skulls at Tlatilco belonged to 12 different “races.” Of the 52 skulls 13.5% were “negroid,” 19.8% were “caucasian,” and 38.5% were “asiatic.” Very importantly Wiercinski (1971: 138; 1972: 238) states that these “racial designations” are purely morphological types and not genetic classifications, that means that just because a skull is labeled “black” it does not mean that the person is from Africa. Wiercinski (1971: 142) claims that the Olmecs were influenced by Shang Chinese and Mediterranean Whites as well as by Africans.
quote: Diehl and Coe (1995, 12) of Harvard University have made it clear that until a skeleton of an African is found on an Olmec site he will not accept the art evidence that the were Africans among the Olmecs. This is rather surprising because Constance Irwin and Dr. Wiercinski (1972) have both reported that skeletal remains of Africans have been found in Mexico. Constance Irwin, in Fair Gods and Stone Faces, says that anthropologist see "distinct signs of Negroid ancestry in many a New World skull...."
No he did not. Even in his flawed analysis, he claimed that the morphology fit the basic type (black white or yellow) of Black/Negroid, but he did not classify them as African.
quote: Dr. Wiercinski (1972) claims that some of the Olmecs were of African origin. He supports this claim with skeletal evidence from several Olmec sites where he found skeletons that were analogous to the West African type black. Many Olmec skulls show cranial deformations (Pailles, 1980), yet Wiercinski (1972b) was able to determine the ethnic origins of the Olmecs. Marquez (1956, 179-80) made it clear that a common trait of the African skulls found in Mexico include marked prognathousness ,prominent cheek bones are also mentioned. Fronto-occipital deformation among the Olmec is not surprising because cranial deformations was common among the Mande speaking people until fairly recently (Desplanges, 1906).
One, as stated before, Wierciski's methodology is flawed, two, he never examined any Olmec skeletons, and three Skull deformations exist all over the Americas. Including the Paracas culture in Peru for example.
quote: Many African skeletons have been found in Mexico. Carlo Marquez (1956, pp.179-180) claimed that these skeletons indicated marked pronathousness and prominent cheek bones. [quote]
Please quote him directly as saying any of the skeletons were African.
[quote] Wiercinski found African skeletons at the Olmec sites of Monte Alban, Cerro de las Mesas and Tlatilco. Morley, Brainerd and Sharer (1989) said that Monte Alban was a colonial Olmec center (p.12).
Repeating yourself Ad nauseum will not change the facts already addressed.
quote: First, it was not surprising that Wiercinski found affinities between African and ancient Chinese populations, because everyone knows that many Negro/African /Oceanic skeletons (referred to as Loponoid by the Polish school) have been found in ancient China see: Kwang-chih Chang The Archaeology of ancient China (1976,1977, p.76,1987, pp.64,68). These Blacks were spread throughout Kwangsi, Kwantung, Szechwan, Yunnan and Pearl River delta.
LOL Typical, you claim he misrepresented one group, but was dead on in the other. How about a more recent anthropometric study.
quote: The genetic evidence supports the skeletal evidence that Africans have been in Mexico for thousands of years. The genetic evidence for Africans among the Mexicans is quite interesting. This evidence supports the skeletal evidence that Africans have lived in Mexico for thousands of years.
The foundational mtDNA lineages for Mexican Indians are lineages A, B, C and D.The frequencies of these lineages vary among population groups. For example, whereas lineages A,B and C were present among Maya at Quintana Roo, Maya at Copan lacked lineages A and B (Gonzalez-Oliver, et al, 2001). This supports Carolina Bonilla et al (2005) view that heterogeneity is a major characteristic of Mexican population.
Underhill, et al (1996) noted that:" One Mayan male, previously [has been] shown to have an African Y chromosome." This is very interesting because the Maya language illustrates a Mande substratum, in addition to African genetic markers. James l. Gutherie (2000) in a study of the HLAs in indigenous American populations, found that the Vantigen of the Rhesus system, considered to be an indication of African ancestry, among Indians in Belize and Mexico centers of Mayan civilization. Dr. Gutherie also noted that A*28 common among Africans has high frequencies among Eastern Maya. It is interesting to note that the Otomi, a Mexican group identified as being of African origin and six Mayan groups show the B Allele of the ABO system that is considered to be of African origin.
Some researchers claim that as many as seventy-five percent of the Mexicans have an African heritage (Green et al, 2000). Although this may be the case Cuevas (2004) says these Africans have been erased from history.
The admixture of Africans and Mexicans make it impossible to compare pictures of contemporary Mexicans and the Olmec. Due to the fact that 75% of the contemporary Mexicans have African genes you find that many of them look similar to the Olmecs whereas the ancient Maya did not.
In a discussion of the Mexican and African admixture in Mexico Lisker et al (1996) noted that the East Coast of Mexico had extensive admixture. The following percentages of African ancestry were found among East coast populations: Paraiso - 21.7%; El Carmen - 28.4% ;Veracruz - 25.6%; Saladero - 30.2%; and Tamiahua - 40.5%. Among Indian groups, Lisker et al (1996) found among the Chontal have 5% and the Cora .8% African admixture. The Chontal speak a Mayan language. According to Crawford et al. (1974), the mestizo population of Saltillo has 15.8% African ancestry, while Tlaxcala has 8% and Cuanalan 18.1%. The Olmecs built their civilization in the region of the current states of Veracruz and Tabasco. Now here again are the percentages of African ancestry according to Lisker et al (1996): Paraiso - 21.7% ; El Carmen - 28.4% ; Veracruz - 25.6% ; Saladero - 30.2% ; Tamiahua - 40.5%. Paraiso is in Tabasco and Veracruz is, of course, in the state of Veracruz. Tamiahua is in northern Veracruz. These areas were the first places in Mexico settled by the Olmecs. I'm not sure about Saladero and El Carmen.
Already addressed in the genetic studies I have linked. No MtDNA to support this theory. And none of the geneticists you quote support your claim either. As for Veracruz, it is the landing place for Slaves, it is Where Loiusianna Creoles settled in the Jim Crow period and even Black Seminoled migrated to that region. I would hoe admixture would be high in the region.
quote: Given the frequency of African admixture with the Mexicans a comparison of Olmec mask, statuettes and other artifacts show many resemblances to contemporary Mexican groups. As illustrated by the photo below.
But a comparison of Olmec figures with ancient Mayan figures , made before the importation of hundreds of thousands of slaves Mexico during the Atlantic Slave Trade show no resemblance at all to the Olmec figures.
The contemporary groups compared to are not only the Quiche Mayans, but the Tzotzil, Yamana, among others. And the Quiche are but one subpopulation of the Mayans. Easily could have been a people that were leftovers of a prior population when the main population of mayans moved in.
quote: Mayan Olmec Mayan
This does not mean that the Maya had no contact with the Africans. This results from the fact that we know the Maya obtained much of their culture, arts and writings from the Olmecs. And many of their gods, especially those associated with trade are of Africans. We also find some images of Blacks among Mayan art.
So basically you claim Mayans didn't look like Olmecs but came after Olmecs, but had African admixture and gods, but they don't look like the Quiche. LOL The convoluted webs you try to weave.
quote: African ancestry has been found among indigenous groups that have had no historical contact with African slaves and thus support an African presence in America, already indicated by African skeletons among the Olmec people. Lisker et al, noted that “The variation of Indian ancestry among the studied Indians shows in general a higher proportion in the more isolated groups, except for the Cora, who are as isolated as the Huichol and have not only a lower frequency but also a certain degree of black admixture. The black admixture is difficult to explain because the Cora reside in a mountainous region away from the west coast”. Green et al (2000) also found Indians with African genes in North Central Mexico, including the L1 and L2 clusters. Green et al (2000) observed that the discovery of a proportion of African haplotypes roughly equivalent to the proportion of European haplotypes [among North Central Mexican Indians] cannot be explained by recent admixture of African Americans for the United States. This is especially the case for the Ojinaga area, which presently is, and historically has been largely isolated from U.S. African Americans. In the Ojinaga sample set, the frequency of African haplotypes was higher that that of European hyplotypes”.
THse claims must be from people who are clueless about migration patterns and escape rates of slaves since the very beginning of the slave trade. Nor do they claim MtDna in these populations, indicating male only migrations.
Posted by SidiRom (Member # 10364) on 08 March, 2006 01:35 PM:
quote:Originally posted by Clyde Winters: yazid904 _____________________________________________________________ The Caribs of St Vincent, The Afro-Caribs of Belize, Bush Negroes of Suriname, Palmares (Brazil), Cimarrones (Jamaica), etc sought isolation to preserve their integrity as a nation. In Mexico, it was more difficult so prabably the Afro-Mexican sought mountaneous areas as self preservation! ___________________________________________________________ There are some Black Mexicans on the Pacific coast who claim they were never slaves. The records show that these people also were not slaves. There are 70,000 of these Blacks living in Costa Chica. Bobby Vaugh said that they claim they landed in Mexcio as a result of a ship wreck.
.....
Not all Blacks came from Slaves, Some came from Blacks in Spanish boats. There were freemen you know. Even Black conquistadors
As for the Carib claim
An old picture of a Carib
They still exist in Guyana
397 in Suriname villages (1980 census). Population total all countries 750. Alternate names: OAYANA, WAJANA, UAIANA, OYANA, OIANA, ALUKUYANA, UPURUI, ROUCOUYENNE. Classification: Carib, Northern, East-West Guiana, Wayana-Trio
Carib or Island Carib is the name of a people of the Lesser Antilles islands, after whom the Caribbean Sea was named; their name for themselves was Kalinago for men and Kallipuna for women. They are an Amerindian people whose origins lie in the southern West Indies and the northern coast of South America. They spoke Kalhíphona, a Maipurean language (Arawakan), although the men either spoke a Carib language or a pidgin. In the southern Caribbean they co-existed with a related Cariban-speaking group, the Galibi who lived in separate villages in Grenada and Tobago and are believed to have been mainland Caribs. Carib - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Galibi Caribs
Modern Galibi Caribs
Posted by Supercar (Member # 6477) on 08 March, 2006 02:20 PM:
quote:Originally posted by rasol:
As to the question of whether West Africans, or NIle Valley Africans ever sailed to the America's on voyages of exploration - I am open to evidence.
There have been claims about the indicators of west African presence in the region, but these all post-date the Olmec culture, mainly in the middle period era. For instance, there is talk of "guanin", which is supposed to have west African connections. Among such claims, aside from Van Sertima's, here is one example...
Columbus admitted in his papers that on Monday, October 21,1492 CE while his ship was sailing near Gibara on the north-east coast of Cuba, he saw a mosque on top of a beautiful mountain. The ruins of mosques and minarets with inscriptions of Quranic verses have been discovered in Cuba,Mexico,Texas and Nevada. (8)
During his second voyage, Columbus was told by the indians of ESPANOLA (Haiti), that black people had been to the island before his arrival. For proof, they presented Columbus with the spears of these African muslims. These weapons were tipped with a yellow metal that the indians called GUANIN, a word of West African derivation meaning 'gold alloy'. Oddly enough, it is related to the Arabic word 'GHINAA' which means 'WEALTH'. Columbus brought some GUANINES back to Spain and had them tested. He learned that the metal was 18 parts gold (56.25%), 6 parts silver (18.75%) and 8 parts copper (25%), the same ratio as the metal produced in African metalshops of Guinea. (14)”
- Dr. Youssef Mroueh; PRECOLUMBIAN MUSLIMS IN THE AMERICAS Posted by Clyde Winters (Member # 10129) on 08 March, 2006 02:22 PM:
quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- African ancestry has been found among indigenous groups that have had no historical contact with African slaves and thus support an African presence in America, already indicated by African skeletons among the Olmec people. Lisker et al, noted that “The variation of Indian ancestry among the studied Indians shows in general a higher proportion in the more isolated groups, except for the Cora, who are as isolated as the Huichol and have not only a lower frequency but also a certain degree of black admixture. The black admixture is difficult to explain because the Cora reside in a mountainous region away from the west coast”. Green et al (2000) also found Indians with African genes in North Central Mexico, including the L1 and L2 clusters. Green et al (2000) observed that the discovery of a proportion of African haplotypes roughly equivalent to the proportion of European haplotypes [among North Central Mexican Indians] cannot be explained by recent admixture of African Americans for the United States. This is especially the case for the Ojinaga area, which presently is, and historically has been largely isolated from U.S. African Americans. In the Ojinaga sample set, the frequency of African haplotypes was higher that that of European hyplotypes”. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
THse claims must be from people who are clueless about migration patterns and escape rates of slaves since the very beginning of the slave trade. Nor do they claim MtDna in these populations, indicating male only migrations. ______________________________________________________________ The genetic data speaks for itself. As many as 75% of Mexicans are estimated to have African heritage. Posted by Clyde Winters (Member # 10129) on 08 March, 2006 02:34 PM:
sidirom quote: ____________________________________________________________ So basically you claim Mayans didn't look like Olmecs but came after Olmecs, but had African admixture and gods, but they don't look like the Quiche. LOL The convoluted webs you try to weave. __________________________________________________________________
I said the ancient Maya do not look like Africans, which is obvious when you compare art from the two groups as I did above. The genetic evidence makes it clear that overtime the two groups began to mate and many African genes were passed on to the Maya. This is supported by the fact that Mayan history makes it clear that they obtained much of their civilization from the Olmec, which is called the "Mother Culture" of Mexico. The Olmec language, which was a variety of Malinke-Bambara is a substratum of the Mayan (including Quiche)languages and the Mixe languages. See the site below:
.........
Posted by Clyde Winters (Member # 10129) on 08 March, 2006 02:46 PM:
sidirom quote: ______________________________________________________________ Already addressed in the genetic studies I have linked. No MtDNA to support this theory. And none of the geneticists you quote support your claim either. As for Veracruz, it is the landing place for Slaves, it is Where Loiusianna Creoles settled in the Jim Crow period and even Black Seminoled migrated to that region. I would hoe admixture would be high in the region. ______________________________________________________________________
The genetic studies I mentioned show the admixture of Mexicans and Africans in Mexico. Enough said.
The genetic evidence of Africans in the region would also be high in the because this was the center of Olmec civilization.
....
Posted by Clyde Winters (Member # 10129) on 08 March, 2006 02:50 PM:
The best evidence of the African influence among the Mayan people, especially in relation to writing is the bilingual Mande-Mayan text discovered in Mexico.
........
Posted by Clyde Winters (Member # 10129) on 08 March, 2006 03:01 PM:
sidirom declares that Wiercinski never examined any Olmec skeletons. This is false you can find his article below:
Posted by Supercar (Member # 6477) on 08 March, 2006 03:40 PM:
quote:Originally posted by Clyde Winters: The best evidence of the African influence among the Mayan people, especially in relation to writing is the bilingual Mande-Mayan text discovered in Mexico.
How old is the Mayan text said to be, and how old is that of Mande said to be?
Posted by osirion (Member # 7644) on 08 March, 2006 05:15 PM:
I thought the Mande writing system was of recent development?
Posted by osirion (Member # 7644) on 08 March, 2006 05:25 PM:
Hmm, Clyde Winters, the man who deciphered the writing of the Fuente Magna.
What has peer review of this deciphering resulted in?
Posted by alTakruri (Member # 10195) on 08 March, 2006 05:32 PM:
A 14th century West African voyage of exploration is left on Arabic record from within one generation of its event. Other voyages of trade occured but escape the Arabic written record but not the Luso-Hispanic one.
Reposting from posted 05 January 2005 06:16 PM ___________________________________________________________
quote: While cognizant that there were voyages, whether intentional or accidental across the Atlantic to the Americas by various Old World peoples, I remain skeptical of unsubstantiated claims. Claims that tend to detract and serve to undermine verifed and verifiable accomplishments of African peoples their cultures, civilization, and history, particularly the West African empires of Mali and Songhai whose outlying provinces where the ones involved in trans-Atlantic ventures.
I consider supposed explorations of the Americas ordered by Mansa Musa as spurious, lacking any documentation. Without doubt it was Bubakari II who was interested in trans-Atlantic exploration. He himself sailed toward the Americas but we lack any report of his findings because he was never heard of again or the government of the extensive Mali empire decided to keep silence on the matter, something not unusual where trade is involved.
The failure of the early 14th century emperor to return home is what led to Mansa Gonga Musa assuming leadership. This is his account of those events as he related in Cairo while on hajj to Mecca
quote:: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Says ibn Amir Hajib “I asked the Sultan Musa how it was that power came into his hands. ‘We are from a house that transmits power by heritage,’ he told me. ‘The ruler who preceded me would not believe that it was impossible to discover the limits of the neighbouring sea. He wanted to find out and persisted in his plans. He had 200 ships equipped and filled them with men, and the same number of ships filled with gold, water and supplies in sufficient quantities to last for years. He told those who commanded them: return only when you have reached the extremity of the ocean or when you have exhausted your food and water. They went away; their absence was long before any of them returned. Finally, a sole ship reappeared. We asked the captain about their adventure. Prince, he replied, we sailed for a long time when we encountered in mid-ocean something like a river with violent current. My ship was last. The others sailed on, gradually each entered this place, they disappeared and did not come back. As for me, I returned to where I was and did not enter that current.
But the emperor did not want to believe him. He equipped 2,000 more vessels and conferred power on me and left with his companion on the ocean. This was the last time I saw him and the others, and I remained absolute master of the empire”.
Shihab al-Din ibn Fadi al-Umari Gaudefroy-Demombynes (trans Masilik el Absar Paris: Librarie Orientaliste Paul Guenther, 1927 pp. 74-5
There‘s evidence of nongovernmental directed trade between West Africa and the Caribbean region, it‘s historic, linguistic, and metallurgical. The word for a gold alloy sold in Hispaniola was the same as that in Guinea.
quote::
"...he [Columbus] thought to investigate the report of the Indians of this Espanola (Haiti) who said that there had come to Espanola from the south and south-east a black people who have the tops of their spears made of a metal which they call 'guanin' of which he had sent samples to the Sovereigns to have them assayed, when it was found that of 32 parts 18 were of gold 6 of silver and 8 of copper." J. Batalha Reis Supposed Discovery of South America before 1488 and the Critical Methods of the Historians of Geographical Discovery Geographical Journal, Royal Geographical Society 9.2 1897 p 205 quoting from Raccolta de Documenti e Studi, Parte I, Vol. I, Scritti de Colombo p. 96
This guanin is precisely the same word kanine in Kono, a language spoken in Guinea. Variations of kanine pervade Mande languages and ultimately derives from Ghana the West African empire that was world reknowned for its gold trade. This gold alloy that included silver and copper was recorded by William Bosman in A New and Accurate Description of the Coast of Guinea London, 1705, pp 73, 74.
Columbus' mention of the black traders in guanin accompanies an intent to prove a notion by a king Dom Jaoa II of Portugal who was certain there was land southwest of Cabo Verde because of merchandise laden Guinean shippers seen heading in that direction in the 1480‘s, well before Columbus ever ventured to the Americas. When Columbus first applied to Portugal in 1484 its ruler told him that lands over 1500 miles west of Cape Verde were already claimed by Portugal. The Andrea Biancho map of 1448 shows that land writing an "authentic island is distant 1500 miles to the west." It looks like northeastern Brazil which is actually more like 2300 miles southwest of Cape Verde.
Another trade item intimately tied into African and Middle American economics was strips of cloth woven from the seeds of the silk cotton tree. Columbus wrote of this almaizar cloth
quote::
"... handerchiefs of cotton, very symmetrically woven and worked in colors like those brought from Guinea, from the rivers of Sierra Leone, and of no difference."
Like guanin, almaizar was of economic importance being used as currency in West Africa and in Middle America. The siik cotton tree was grown in Middle America and the Americans wove almaizar of their own. Was this a botanical and technological transplant following the wake of pre Luso-Hispanic trans-Atlantic West African trade set up by Mandinka settlers? Philological ethnonymic and historic anthropology evidence shows that several names of towns and ethnies in Middle America were of West African derivation. These things are well documented and of certain surety unlike stray single mentions of elephants in Arizona or minaretted masjids in Mexico, Texas, and Nevada, which I rule out until referenced by primary citations with quotes.
Trade involves goods from at least two terminals. What made it worth the West Africans efforts to trade with Middle Americans? I mean what went from the Americas to West Africa? This is an area for students and scholars of Africana studies to look into. It will further bolster the already existant evidence of pre Luso-Hispanic trans-Atlantic West African/Middle American trade.
quote:Originally posted by rasol: As to the question of whether West Africans, or NIle Valley Africans ever sailed to the America's on voyages of exploration - I am open to evidence.
Posted by alTakruri (Member # 10195) on 08 March, 2006 09:31 PM:
Xi art that some make pretend doesn't exist
You may have to open another window without an EgyptSearch address and then cut and paste the URL in order to view these.
Can anyone produce Mande art from Mauritania/Mali of this same time period, 1200 BCE - 200 CE, that's of the same worksmanship and representative style resembling either the Colosal Cabezos, ceramic, or jade art pieces of humans of the Xi era? Did the pre CE Mande play ball?
quote:Originally posted by Clyde Winters: altakruri quote: ____________________________________________________________________ Americas "junk" DNA so far shows little relation to Africa. The Olmecs had influential African visitors but those visitors by no means originated Olmec civilization or were the only Olmec or even the majority Olmec population. ______________________________________________________________________
This is pure speculation. Please present evidence supporting this claim. The Olmec art of the earliest period and skeletal remains show the Olmecs were the earliest civilization was dominated by Africans.
Posted by osirion (Member # 7644) on 08 March, 2006 10:53 PM:
Many of the Olmec represenations look very Chinese.
Posted by SidiRom (Member # 10364) on 08 March, 2006 11:32 PM:
quote:Originally posted by Clyde Winters: The genetic data speaks for itself. As many as 75% of Mexicans are estimated to have African heritage.[/b] [/QB]
And 10% of African Population in Colonial times explains that. But not features in indigenous populations
Posted by SidiRom (Member # 10364) on 08 March, 2006 11:34 PM:
quote:Originally posted by Clyde Winters:The Olmec language, which was a variety of Malinke-Bambara is a substratum of the Mayan (including Quiche)languages and the Mixe languages. See the site below:[/b]
I've seen your linguistics shot down quite convincingly before. No need to see your claims.
Posted by SidiRom (Member # 10364) on 08 March, 2006 11:35 PM:
quote:Originally posted by Clyde Winters: sidirom quote: ______________________________________________________________ Already addressed in the genetic studies I have linked. No MtDNA to support this theory. And none of the geneticists you quote support your claim either. As for Veracruz, it is the landing place for Slaves, it is Where Loiusianna Creoles settled in the Jim Crow period and even Black Seminoled migrated to that region. I would hoe admixture would be high in the region. ______________________________________________________________________
The genetic studies I mentioned show the admixture of Mexicans and Africans in Mexico. Enough said.
The genetic evidence of Africans in the region would also be high in the because this was the center of Olmec civilization.
....
I see you dondge the lack of MtDNA. And the lack of African diseases.
Posted by SidiRom (Member # 10364) on 08 March, 2006 11:36 PM:
quote:Originally posted by Clyde Winters: The best evidence of the African influence among the Mayan people, especially in relation to writing is the bilingual Mande-Mayan text discovered in Mexico.
........
LOL all I see is a lot of garble and you making claims.
Posted by SidiRom (Member # 10364) on 08 March, 2006 11:38 PM:
quote:Originally posted by Clyde Winters: sidirom declares that Wiercinski never examined any Olmec skeletons. This is false you can find his article below:
I've seen your claims before. I notice you dodge the fact that he was considered anachronic even in his time.
Posted by SidiRom (Member # 10364) on 08 March, 2006 11:43 PM:
quote:guanín Van Sertima (1995; 1998:3-4) claims that Columbus described an African artifact in the journals of his 3rd voyage.(5) Columbus wanted to find out what the Indians of Española had told him, that there had come from the south and the southeast, Negro people, who brought those spear points made of a metal which they call guanin, of which he had sent samples to the king and queen for assay which [sic] was found to have 32 parts- 18 of gold, 6 of silver, and 8 of copper (Thacher 1903-1904: vol. 2, 380).(6) Van Sertima continues, "The proportion of gold, silver, and copper alloys were found to be identical with spears being forged at that time in African Guinea. Apart from the eyewitness testimony of the Native Americans, here is incontestable metallurgical evidence from Europeans themselves (their meticulous assays establishing the identical proportions of metal alloys in the spears found in the Caribbean and the spears made in Guinea) (Van Sertima 1998: 3)." Even though our primary focus is on the Olmec period, we need to briefly deal with Van Sertima's claims that guanín is an artifact. Van Sertima presents the claim of identity between African and New World alloy spears as if it were a continuing paraphrase of the quote from Columbus. In fact, neither Thacher, Las Casas, Columbus nor anyone else says anything about African gold spears, their analysis, or their identity with the gold alloy from the New World.(7) Van Sertima asserts this identity with no evidence whatsoever. This complete lack of evidence disposes of his claim, but we will discuss the matter briefly. Copper/gold and copper/gold/silver alloys are not distinguished from each other and are referred to generically as tumbaga.(8) Guanín is a word in Arawak, the language of the inhabitants of Hispaniola, not Mandingo and was, therefore, not imported. Rivet and Arsandaux (1946: 60 ff.) show that in many Arawakan languages words like guanín or guani and words resembling karakoli, in Carib languages, designate tumbaga alloys. In his discussion of this issue, Van Sertima relies on the Afrocentric hyperdiffusionist Harold Lawrence, not on Columbus and the early chroniclers. Lawrence (1987) claims that "Mandinga traders" from West Africa made "several" voyages to the Americas after 1300 and established colonies in Honduras, Nicaragua, Panama, Venezuela, and the island of St. Vincent. In any case alloys in Africa were not the same as Columbus' guanín. Lawrence, Van Sertima's source, cites Bosman (1967) for the composition of gold alloy objects (though not spear heads). For comparison, Moche tumbagas are also provided (Lechtman 1988). The composition is given in percentages to facilitate comparison. gold copper silver Columbus-guanin 56% 25% 19% Guinea 50% 25% 25% Guinea 65% 17.2% 17.2% Mochica 31% 60% 10% Moche 68% 13% 19% Moche 67% 11% 22% The proportions of this ternary alloy vary so widely that a particular composition is not an identifying marker.(9) Columbus found natives trading all kinds of objects (not just spear points) made from guanín in the whole region of Central America and Venezuela (Morison 1942: 265, 589). This was to be expected, because copper/gold and copper/silver/gold alloys were first made by the Moche culture of Peru about A.D. 100 (Lechtman, Erlij, and Barry 1982) and eventually diffused through the New World reaching Western Mexico about A.D. 1200 (Hosler 1994: 127). There is no need to posit diffusion of this alloy to the circum-Caribbean region from Africa because gold/copper/silver alloys were being made in neighboring South America 1400 years before Columbus' journey. notes (5) Morison (1963: 259) says that Bartolomé de Las Casas made an abstract of the journal of the Third Voyage. This manuscript was first printed in full by De Lolis in Raccolta I ii 1-25 and "so far as I can ascertain, the only English translation published is an unreliable one in Thacher... [This is the source used by Van Sertima]." An abstract of a scribe's report of statements from Christopher Columbus is not quite the equivalent of a "controlled archaeological dig" in evaluating an artifact. (6) Thacher is not quoted correctly- it should read- "... he thought to investigate the report of the Indians of this Española who said that there had come to Española from the south and south-east, a black people, who have the tops of their spears made of a metal which they call 'guanin' of which he had sent samples to the Sovereigns to have them assayed, when it was found that of 32 parts, 18 were of gold, 6 of silver, and 8 of copper." It is also problematic that Thacher was used (presumably because that is what Wiener used) when a better and more accessible translation (Morison 1963: 263) was available. (7) Why Africans would limit themselves to bring soft gold tipped spears to the New World is beyond us. Africans smelted iron and steel by 600 B.C. in Tanzania (Schmidt and Childs 1995; Schmidt 1996), and iron tools reached West Africa 2000 years ago, fueling the Bantu explosion that populated Central Africa (Diamond 1994). Columbus and his editor, Bartolomé de Las Casas, were convinced that Africans had not come to the Americas because the two continents were too distant from each other (Morison 1963: 271; Thacher 1903 04: vol. 2, 392-393). (8) Tumbaga is a Sanskrit loan word for copper which came to the New World via Tagalog (Philippines) and Spanish, and in turn, copper/gold alloys taken to the Far East by the Spanish were called tumbaga (Blust 1992). (9) Rivet and Arsandaux (1946: 48-59) found tumbaga objects with a gold content ranging from 11% to 81% and copper ranging from 18% to 87%>
Posted by Clyde Winters (Member # 10129) on 08 March, 2006 11:52 PM:
sidirom quote: _______________________________________________________________ quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Originally posted by Clyde Winters: The genetic data speaks for itself. As many as 75% of Mexicans are estimated to have African heritage.[/b] [/QB] --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
And 10% of African Population in Colonial times explains that. But not features in indigenous populations ______________________________________________________________
You really expect someone to believe that a population of 10% during colonial times could have such a great impact on Mexiccans that 75% of them have African heritage Correct me if I'm wrong but I don't believe that Europeans who outnumered slaves during colonial times have contributed that much genetic material to the Amerinds.
The only way we can explain the high percentage of Mexicans with African heritage is the reality that many West Africans were living in America before and after Columbus.
Posted by Lord_of_Drakons (Member # 10425) on 08 March, 2006 11:58 PM:
Olmecs are not closely related to Africans.
Olmecs are more closer related to the mongoloid people, like all Native Americans than they are to negroids, ghanoids, libyanoids, Madagascarians, or Zimbabwics.
And the Olmecs, like all human beings before the modern centuries, gain their technology and understanding of the universe from the Annunaki that constantly visit them.
Why did the Annunaki decide to visit them?
Well it's like the Santa Claus myth, if you are a good boy or girl Santa Claus gives you presants and if you are a boy or girl Santa Claus gives you a big rock of coal.
Well the Annunaki only visit the humans they find that are most tolerant and respectful to others. Or in other words,
"Oh you are such a cutie human." <- a sample of what aliens see in humans.
Humans are like cute little puppies and kittens to aliens. And that's because we are utterly stupid and interesting at the same time. We still are right now even.
They will visit us again soon, but it's for the same reason as shown on what will happen in revelations. To exterminate half of the human population. What for? To get rid of the genetic qualities in our population responsible for our malicious activities.
Nevertheless, Africans haven't been in the Americas for until the age of exploration.
And with that genetic crap... Africans and Asians have the same hair gene and that is probably why you are confused and thinking of Africans being the Olmecs.
And besides if Africans really did came into the Americas they would be from Ghana and have much lighter skin than you would think they have. Only Negroids have pitch black skin.
Posted by SidiRom (Member # 10364) on 09 March, 2006 12:06 AM:
quote:Originally posted by Clyde Winters: sidirom quote: _______________________________________________________________ quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Originally posted by Clyde Winters: The genetic data speaks for itself. As many as 75% of Mexicans are estimated to have African heritage.[/b] --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
And 10% of African Population in Colonial times explains that. But not features in indigenous populations ______________________________________________________________
[b] You really expect someone to believe that a population of 10% during colonial times could have such a great impact on Mexiccans that 75% of them have African heritage Correct me if I'm wrong but I don't believe that Europeans who outnumered slaves during colonial times have contributed that much genetic material to the Amerinds.[quote] Go look at the stats.
[quote]The only way we can explain the high percentage of Mexicans with African heritage is the reality that many West Africans were living in America before and after Columbus.
Wishful thinking is always amusing.
Posted by Clyde Winters (Member # 10129) on 09 March, 2006 12:06 AM:
sidirom quote: __________________________________________________________________ quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Originally posted by Clyde Winters: sidirom declares that Wiercinski never examined any Olmec skeletons. This is false you can find his article below:
I've seen your claims before. I notice you dodge the fact that he was considered anachronic even in his time. ________________________________________________________________
I have acknowledge the faults in his analysis and shown that there were even more Africans among the Olmec population when we look at his data in light of our knowledge of African prehistory. See:
You said he did not examine Olmec skeletons, as usual I have proven that you were wrong. Yet, you have failed to acknowledge that Wiercinski did examine Olmec skeletons. Your arguments rest on sand.
Best representation of Amerind Mexicans are figures of the and Maya. These ancient Maya look nothing like the Olmec.
....
Posted by SidiRom (Member # 10364) on 09 March, 2006 12:09 AM:
LMAO. Your supposed evidence is highly amusing. I'm waiting for you to submit it to a peer reviewed anthropology magazine.
Posted by Clyde Winters (Member # 10129) on 09 March, 2006 12:30 AM:
Hmm, Clyde Winters, the man who deciphered the writing of the Fuente Magna.
What has peer review of this deciphering resulted in? _______________________________________________________________ I have also deciphered the Indus Valley and Meroitic writing. I have presented my work at many National and International Conferences.
Friday, April 16th ... in Highland Chiapas. 9:30. Clyde Winters (Loyola U - Chicago) Olmec Symbolism in the Mayan Writing. 9:50. Nestor Quiroa (U Illinois ... www.aaanet.org/csas/mtg99/program/pfri.html - 47k - Cached - Similar pages
Saturday, April 17th ... 11:15. Samuel Cooper (Bar Ilan U) The Classification of Biblical Sacrifice. 11:35. Clyde Winters (Loyola U - Chicago) Harappan Origins of Yogi. 11:55. ... www.aaanet.org/csas/mtg99/program/psat.html - 50k - Cached - Similar pages
preliminary program csas98 ... Mexican Villages. 4:10 Clyde A. Winters (Uthman dan Fodio I) Jaguar Kings: Olmec Royalty and Religious Leaders in the First Person. 4:30 ... www.aaanet.org/csas/mtg98/Prelimp5.htm
- 39k - Cached - Similar pages
Thursday April, 3 - Early Afternoon ... Russia [1413]. 2:30 pm - Clyde A. Winters (Uthman dan Fodio Institute) - The Decipherment of Olmec Writing [1414]. 2:50 pm - James ... www.aaanet.org/csas/mtg97/final.htm
- 36k - Cached - Similar pages
Posted by SidiRom (Member # 10364) on 09 March, 2006 07:01 AM:
Yep, your supposed deciphering is always presented in Afrocentric circles. and once in a while in borderline publications. Yet, each time the general consensus is that you are full of it.
Posted by Clyde Winters (Member # 10129) on 09 March, 2006 07:25 AM:
sidirom quote: ___________________________________________________________________ Yep, your supposed deciphering is always presented in Afrocentric circles. and once in a while in borderline publications. Yet, each time the general consensus is that you are full of it. ______________________________________________________ Are you claiming that the American Anthropological Association and Central States Anthropological Association are Afrocentric group? These are mainstream anthropological associations. You don't know anything about peer review anthropology or linguistics. Many Mexicans look like the Olmecs because 75% of the Mexicans have African heritage.
Hmm, Clyde Winters, the man who deciphered the writing of the Fuente Magna.
What has peer review of this deciphering resulted in? _______________________________________________________________
I have also deciphered the Indus Valley and Meroitic writing. I have presented my work at many National and International Conferences.
Friday, April 16th ... in Highland Chiapas. 9:30. Clyde Winters (Loyola U - Chicago) Olmec Symbolism in the Mayan Writing. 9:50. Nestor Quiroa (U Illinois ... www.aaanet.org/csas/mtg99/program/pfri.html
- 47k - Cached - Similar pages
Saturday, April 17th ... 11:15. Samuel Cooper (Bar Ilan U) The Classification of Biblical Sacrifice. 11:35. Clyde Winters (Loyola U - Chicago) Harappan Origins of Yogi. 11:55. ... www.aaanet.org/csas/mtg99/program/psat.html
- 50k - Cached - Similar pages
preliminary program csas98 ... Mexican Villages. 4:10 Clyde A. Winters (Uthman dan Fodio I) Jaguar Kings: Olmec Royalty and Religious Leaders in the First Person. 4:30 ... www.aaanet.org/csas/mtg98/Prelimp5.htm
- 39k - Cached - Similar pages
Thursday April, 3 - Early Afternoon ... Russia [1413]. 2:30 pm - Clyde A. Winters (Uthman dan Fodio Institute) - The Decipherment of Olmec Writing [1414]. 2:50 pm - James ... www.aaanet.org/csas/mtg97/final.htm
....
Posted by Clyde Winters (Member # 10129) on 09 March, 2006 07:34 AM:
sidirom quote: ___________________________________________________________________ Yep, your supposed deciphering is always presented in Afrocentric circles. and once in a while in borderline publications. Yet, each time the general consensus is that you are full of it. ______________________________________________________ Are you claiming that the American Anthropological Association and Central States Anthropological Society are Afrocentric group? These are mainstream anthropological associations. You don't know anything about peer review anthropology or linguistics. Many Mexicans look like the Olmecs because 75% of the Mexicans have African heritage.
Hmm, Clyde Winters, the man who deciphered the writing of the Fuente Magna.
What has peer review of this deciphering resulted in? _______________________________________________________________
I have also deciphered the Indus Valley and Meroitic writing. I have presented my work at many National and International Conferences.
Friday, April 16th ... in Highland Chiapas. 9:30. Clyde Winters (Loyola U - Chicago) Olmec Symbolism in the Mayan Writing. 9:50. Nestor Quiroa (U Illinois ... www.aaanet.org/csas/mtg99/program/pfri.html
- 47k - Cached - Similar pages
Saturday, April 17th ... 11:15. Samuel Cooper (Bar Ilan U) The Classification of Biblical Sacrifice. 11:35. Clyde Winters (Loyola U - Chicago) Harappan Origins of Yogi. 11:55. ... www.aaanet.org/csas/mtg99/program/psat.html
- 50k - Cached - Similar pages
preliminary program csas98 ... Mexican Villages. 4:10 Clyde A. Winters (Uthman dan Fodio I) Jaguar Kings: Olmec Royalty and Religious Leaders in the First Person. 4:30 ... www.aaanet.org/csas/mtg98/Prelimp5.htm
- 39k - Cached - Similar pages
Thursday April, 3 - Early Afternoon ... Russia [1413]. 2:30 pm - Clyde A. Winters (Uthman dan Fodio Institute) - The Decipherment of Olmec Writing [1414]. 2:50 pm - James ... www.aaanet.org/csas/mtg97/final.htm
....
Posted by RU2religious (Member # 4547) on 09 March, 2006 10:32 AM:
quote:Originally posted by SidiRom:
quote:Originally posted by Clyde Winters: sidirom quote: _______________________________________________________________ quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Originally posted by Clyde Winters: The genetic data speaks for itself. As many as 75% of Mexicans are estimated to have African heritage.[/b] --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
And 10% of African Population in Colonial times explains that. But not features in indigenous populations ______________________________________________________________
[b] You really expect someone to believe that a population of 10% during colonial times could have such a great impact on Mexiccans that 75% of them have African heritage Correct me if I'm wrong but I don't believe that Europeans who outnumered slaves during colonial times have contributed that much genetic material to the Amerinds.[quote] Go look at the stats.
[quote]The only way we can explain the high percentage of Mexicans with African heritage is the reality that many West Africans were living in America before and after Columbus.
Wishful thinking is always amusing.
Could you please explain your comment concerning wishful thinking?
My grandfather was told by his grandfather, who in turn was told by his grandfather to never forget that before there was the Atlantic Slave trade, my particular family was already here.
Columbus nephew made that same claim that he seen Africans walking around the new land, which is historically proven. So why would it be considered wishful thinking if this can be historically proven?
Once again, in our adventure to remove Afrocentric & Eurocentric ideals far from us; information that seems to add up historically we have cast aside for a form of Eurocentricism.
This site discusses a lot about mtDNA, yDNA and other forms of studies but it seems that the very basics of History have been far removed by these particular studies which cannot truly tell the color of a man/woman. Secondly, those who have been able to preform such test has been given over to the Eurocentric ideology for the most part so I believe that if we don't participate in the research ourselves we then are forced to provide bias evidence as our form of evidence.
When I say ours I'm simply saying those of us who choose not form of [ism] at all.
Back to case and point... it has been a tradition in our family not to forget that our forefathers were already here in the Americans i.e. Turtle Island-Mountain prior to the Spaniards & Aryans invasion. It become foolish to me for someone to use there so-called genetics research to tell me or others who were already here that they weren't.
history is still a reliable tool if Europeans and Afrocentrics don't take it and distort it for their personal agenda's. My family isn't the only ones that were here and there are many others like my family.
We are no different from those who were removed from West Africa. The difference is; we weren't brought here as slaves was through a voyage that happened thousands of years before Euro-Spaniard and Siberian invasions. My grandfather told me that the Siberian which are not indians, were at war with the Indi "black" men i.e. Indians or should I say Siberians and West Africans have been at each other throats ever sense the Siberian moved in and tried to take over.
When the Europeans made it over to turtle Island they went to war with the Indi "blak" indians i.e. West Africans. The Siberians who are now considered Indians and also native to this land thought they weren't the first... began to enslave these black men who were already over here in the Americans (i.e. Cherokees and Souix). During the slave trade these Siberians owned themselves a few West Africans. The Europeans whipped out a large part of us who were already here but they also saved a large part of us because they didn't know if we were slaves or if we were natives. So many of us suffered along with our fellow brothers and sisters from West Africa and different parts of the African continent. They destroyed the Siberian indians because they were feirce and warrior like. The Siberians were already fighting for the land prior to the Euro invasion and they were become victorious until the invasion.
The Siberians and the Indi/West African teamed up to fight against these Europeans and ultimately they they both were destroyed, but when they do these so-called genetic test on many of these African Americans and they find no Siberian blood, it is assumed that they weren't natives and that they made it to the Americas on ships when it that couldn't be further from the truth. It is estimated that only 2 million slaves made it to the Americans while most slaves made it to other countries. In the Americans their were already West Africans here and I am a product of that.
That cannot be dismissed as Afrocentricism, that is a reality. So in this case Genetic studies is obsolite when studying Olmecs and so-forth.
Mexicans equal mixed race. It is highly provable that they have 75% of African ancestry within them there population because we were already here and the relationship we have with them now is totally opposite of what our relationship was before the Europeans made it an evil thing to have a good relationship with African..
Posted by Yonis (Member # 7684) on 09 March, 2006 11:20 AM:
Ok, how old is this migration from west Africa to America,and how come no one has found any west african ships in America? We can assume your ancestors traveled through the Atlantic sea, right?
Posted by Clyde Winters (Member # 10129) on 09 March, 2006 11:28 AM:
Back to case and point... it has been a tradition in our family not to forget that our forefathers were already here in the Americans i.e. Turtle Island-Mountain prior to the Spaniards & Aryans invasion. It become foolish to me for someone to use there so-called genetics research to tell me or others who were already here that they weren't. ______________________________________________________________
Many people will ignore your claim which I believe is true, because they associate Native Americans with the Indians in the Southwest. These "native" American people were semi-nomadic and thus avoided being wiped out.
There were many other groups who were agricultural people who remained on their land as farmers, or forced to become slaves because of their "African" features. These Indians because they didn't fight Europeans in the 'Old West', are ignored by history and reality, being replaced by the semi-nomads of the Southwest--who are recognized today as the only authentic 'Native Americans'.
I believe that most of my ancestors came from Africa. But my parents made it clear to us growing up that we also had Indian ancestry (Choctaw on my mother's side and Cherokee on my father's side). My wifes great grandmother was full blooded Indian on her mother's side, and my wife was told she could speak no English at all; her father was part Cherokee.
I am proud to be an Afro-American, because we are the only descendants of slaves in history to rise to the same level as our former masters and exceed many of them, due to our intelligence and creativity. And like you, I don't care what mtDNA says, if my family said I have Indian ancestry, no matter what someone else says I have Indian ancestry. I am proud of the accomplishments of the five civilized tribes, especially Sequoyah's use of the Vai writing system to invent the Cherokee syllabary.
.......
Posted by Clyde Winters (Member # 10129) on 09 March, 2006 12:12 PM:
Yonis quote _________________________________________________________________ Ok, how old is this migration from west Africa to America,and how come no one has found any west african ships in America? We can assume your ancestors traveled through the Atlantic sea, right? _______________________________________________________________ Africans used many different types of boats in Africa. Some were made out of entire tree trunks, while other boats were sewn or made out of reeds or planks.
A popular form of travel for these Africans was the reed boat. These reed boats were used throughout Africa. The early Mande or Garamante people who settled many Islands in the Mediterranean used these boats at Thera.
They reed boats continue to be constructed in Africa, especially in Chad.
Other reed boats are made in Ethiopia.
In South America as noted earlier have African HLAs. Africans also left their ability to build reed boats to the people living on Lake Titicaca.
In the area of Lake Titicaca, we also find many statues of Africans and other Blacks who lived here in the Americas before Columbus.
Posted by SidiRom (Member # 10364) on 09 March, 2006 12:58 PM:
quote:Originally posted by Clyde Winters: Are you claiming that the American Anthropological Association and Central States Anthropological Association are Afrocentric group? These are mainstream anthropological associations. You don't know anything about peer review anthropology or linguistics. Many Mexicans look like the Olmecs because 75% of the Mexicans have African heritage
Nice dreaming. Why don't you post the rebuttals to your article in AAA? The CSAA is small time. And these are not linguistic publications.
Try The Journal of the Linguistics Association of Great Britain.
And your Olmec claims are wishful thinking. The Yamana have zero admixture, and they could easily pass as Olmec.
Posted by SidiRom (Member # 10364) on 09 March, 2006 01:05 PM:
quote:Originally posted by RU2religious: My grandfather was told by his grandfather, who in turn was told by his grandfather to never forget that before there was the Atlantic Slave trade, my particular family was already here.
So your family has Indigenous ancestry as well, and?
quote:Columbus nephew made that same claim that he seen Africans walking around the new land, which is historically proven. So why would it be considered wishful thinking if this can be historically proven?
Feel free to give a direct quote and citation.
quote:Secondly, those who have been able to preform such test has been given over to the Eurocentric ideology for the most part so I believe that if we don't participate in the research ourselves we then are forced to provide bias evidence as our form of evidence.
Hardly. Many of those doing the tests are Afro-American like Rick Kittles.
quote:Back to case and point... it has been a tradition in our family not to forget that our forefathers were already here in the Americans i.e. Turtle Island-Mountain prior to the Spaniards & Aryans invasion. It become foolish to me for someone to use there so-called genetics research to tell me or others who were already here that they weren't.
Sorry to tell you this, but some traditions are based on reality, and some of fanciful stories. Unless you can confirm the stories, they are hearsay.
quote:We are no different from those who were removed from West Africa. The difference is; we weren't brought here as slaves was through a voyage that happened thousands of years before Euro-Spaniard and Siberian invasions. My grandfather told me that the Siberian which are not indians, were at war with the Indi "black" men i.e. Indians or should I say Siberians and West Africans have been at each other throats ever sense the Siberian moved in and tried to take over.
The fact that he used the terms Indi and Siberian already shows mythologizing in contruction.
Sorry, but your story is great for a children's book, but no evidence to support it.
Posted by SidiRom (Member # 10364) on 09 March, 2006 01:11 PM:
quote:Originally posted by Clyde Winters: Many people will ignore your claim which I believe is true, because they associate Native Americans with the Indians in the Southwest. These "native" American people were semi-nomadic and thus avoided being wiped out.
There were many other groups who were agricultural people who remained on their land as farmers, or forced to become slaves because of their "African" features. These Indians because they didn't fight Europeans in the 'Old West', are ignored by history and reality, being replaced by the semi-nomads of the Southwest--who are recognized today as the only authentic 'Native Americans'.
I believe that most of my ancestors came from Africa. But my parents made it clear to us growing up that we also had Indian ancestry (Choctaw on my mother's side and Cherokee on my father's side). My wifes great grandmother was full blooded Indian on her mother's side, and my wife was told she could speak no English at all; her father was part Cherokee.
I am proud to be an Afro-American, because we are the only descendants of slaves in history to rise to the same level as our former masters and exceed many of them, due to our intelligence and creativity. And like you, I don't care what mtDNA says, if my family said I have Indian ancestry, no matter what someone else says I have Indian ancestry. I am proud of the accomplishments of the five civilized tribes, especially Sequoyah's use of the Vai writing system to invent the Cherokee syllabary.
[/b] ....... [/QB]
You claim to be Cherokee and in the same breath try to rob their accomplishments by giving it Vai origins.
Vai Cherokee
Oh yeah so identical.
Posted by RU2religious (Member # 4547) on 09 March, 2006 01:32 PM:
I don't know how they got here but what I do know is that it is a family tradition that has been keep up for generations upon generations.
Secondly, what type of ships are you looking for Yonis? Where talking about thousands of years ago, does.
Posted by SidiRom (Member # 10364) on 09 March, 2006 02:14 PM:
quote:Originally posted by Clyde Winters:
Africans used many different types of boats in Africa. Some were made out of entire tree trunks, while other boats were sewn or made out of reeds or planks.
A popular form of travel for these Africans was the reed boat. These reed boats were used throughout Africa. The early Mande or Garamante people who settled many Islands in the Mediterranean used these boats at Thera.
They reed boats continue to be constructed in Africa, especially in Chad.
Other reed boats are made in Ethiopia.
In South America as noted earlier have African HLAs. Africans also left their ability to build reed boats to the people living on Lake Titicaca.
In the area of Lake Titicaca, we also find many statues of Africans and other Blacks who lived here in the Americas before Columbus. [/b]
[/QB]
What hogwash. I find it ironic that The Aymara Mochica, etc that build totora boats have no reciprocality in Meso American or Amazonian Indigenous populations. And those statues are as amorphous as you can get. But you will see Africans in your soup. And I saw you jumped all over that Fuente-Magna Hoax. Posted by RU2religious (Member # 4547) on 09 March, 2006 02:15 PM:
Here is a little something something...
"Peter Martyr d'Anghera, the first historian on America, tells of a meeting between Balboa (1475-1519) and his Spanish explorers and the blacks of Darien (Panama). This was in 1513. The blacks lived a day's march up into the mountains from Quarequa. They had been shipwrecked and had made their own settlement in the mountains. They had become a fierce people. They were at war constantly with the Indians at Quarequa. They were captured in battle by the Indians, and they also took Indians captive. There has been no general revelation of these facts; however, these blacks were the first to have been seen in the Indes. Among the Spanish shipwrecks of African vessels on the American coast were nothing new. Some solid examples of pre-Columbian black African presence in America are clay, gold and stone portraiture showing black African strain. These were unearthed in Central and South America. Some of the unmistakable African resemblance has been dated from 800 to 700 BCE. "
I found that Columbus nephew spotted Africans or black folks in Central America... I just have to find where that information is located...
Posted by RU2religious (Member # 4547) on 09 March, 2006 02:24 PM:
quote:Originally posted by SidiRom:
quote:Originally posted by RU2religious: My grandfather was told by his grandfather, who in turn was told by his grandfather to never forget that before there was the Atlantic Slave trade, my particular family was already here.
So your family has Indigenous ancestry as well, and?
quote:Columbus nephew made that same claim that he seen Africans walking around the new land, which is historically proven. So why would it be considered wishful thinking if this can be historically proven?
Feel free to give a direct quote and citation.
quote:Secondly, those who have been able to preform such test has been given over to the Eurocentric ideology for the most part so I believe that if we don't participate in the research ourselves we then are forced to provide bias evidence as our form of evidence.
Hardly. Many of those doing the tests are Afro-American like Rick Kittles.
quote:Back to case and point... it has been a tradition in our family not to forget that our forefathers were already here in the Americans i.e. Turtle Island-Mountain prior to the Spaniards & Aryans invasion. It become foolish to me for someone to use there so-called genetics research to tell me or others who were already here that they weren't.
Sorry to tell you this, but some traditions are based on reality, and some of fanciful stories. Unless you can confirm the stories, they are hearsay.
quote:We are no different from those who were removed from West Africa. The difference is; we weren't brought here as slaves was through a voyage that happened thousands of years before Euro-Spaniard and Siberian invasions. My grandfather told me that the Siberian which are not indians, were at war with the Indi "black" men i.e. Indians or should I say Siberians and West Africans have been at each other throats ever sense the Siberian moved in and tried to take over.
The fact that he used the terms Indi and Siberian already shows mythologizing in contruction.
Sorry, but your story is great for a children's book, but no evidence to support it.
Lol your funny....
One again... these are stories that were handed down from my grandfather to me... and his grandfather handed it to him and his grandfather handed it to him. This was done so that we didn't forget our history...
My grandfather said... if your trying to trace us back to the slave ships then you will be looking forever because we cannot be traced to the slave ships. I have traced my mothers father to the slave ship...
To this day I have not been able to trace my grandfather on my fathers side back to the slave ships. It is possible, especially if Columbus learned how to get to the Americas from West Africans..
Posted by yazid904 (Member # 7708) on 09 March, 2006 03:48 PM:
The Spaniards had a knack for naming anyone 'negro', negrito (pilipines), moro, who only were so in color but who were not necessarily so. The Indians of Columbus time were truly black or brown skinned so technically black is a logical assignation of colour, like white for any European. Any non-white person is usually black unless his fairer skin colour indicated otherwise.
Aymara use reeds because this is the best material of choice for their culture, as in those Africans who use reeds. Because reed is the tool of choice for boats is not too say African presence is close by! The high altitude is a major reason that African presence may be non-existant. The Aymara may have learnt reed building in the lowlands but spread to the highlands to excape enemies. WHo knows?
Posted by SidiRom (Member # 10364) on 09 March, 2006 04:00 PM:
quote:Originally posted by RU2religious: Lol your funny.... One again... these are stories that were handed down from my grandfather to me... and his grandfather handed it to him and his grandfather handed it to him. This was done so that we didn't forget our history...
Myths do the exact same thing. Ever heard of the broken telephone game?
quote:My grandfather said... if your trying to trace us back to the slave ships then you will be looking forever because we cannot be traced to the slave ships. I have traced my mothers father to the slave ship...[quote] Do you even know what that ancient ancestor looked like? LOL. For all you know the guy was Native American and it is just your indigenous side.
[quote]To this day I have not been able to trace my grandfather on my fathers side back to the slave ships. It is possible, especially if Columbus learned how to get to the Americas from West Africans..
Considering he didn't even know the Americas where there, shows how much the West Africans knew.
Posted by SidiRom (Member # 10364) on 09 March, 2006 04:19 PM:
quote:Originally posted by RU2religious: Here is a little something something...
"Peter Martyr d'Anghera, the first historian on America, tells of a meeting between Balboa (1475-1519) and his Spanish explorers and the blacks of Darien (Panama). This was in 1513. The blacks lived a day's march up into the mountains from Quarequa. They had been shipwrecked and had made their own settlement in the mountains. They had become a fierce people. They were at war constantly with the Indians at Quarequa. They were captured in battle by the Indians, and they also took Indians captive. There has been no general revelation of these facts; however, these blacks were the first to have been seen in the Indes. Among the Spanish shipwrecks of African vessels on the American coast were nothing new. Some solid examples of pre-Columbian black African presence in America are clay, gold and stone portraiture showing black African strain. These were unearthed in Central and South America. Some of the unmistakable African resemblance has been dated from 800 to 700 BCE. "
I found that Columbus nephew spotted Africans or black folks in Central America... I just have to find where that information is located...
Sure, it's a possibility, allthough i would want to read the text in Spanish. Accidental migrations are not in doubt. Japanese sailors have accidentaly made it to the Americas. But this is not migration, nor civilization starting. Most do not argue that on occassion people made it across, but there was no concerted migration, nor enough population to establish a civilization. It was a shipwreck. Could have been from the Barbary Estates. It still does not show a pre-colombian presence. Just the possibility of people coming over accidentaly. Which was never in dispute.
Again though I would still want to read the direct quote.
Posted by SidiRom (Member # 10364) on 09 March, 2006 04:20 PM:
quote:Originally posted by yazid904: The Spaniards had a knack for naming anyone 'negro', negrito (pilipines), moro, who only were so in color but who were not necessarily so. The Indians of Columbus time were truly black or brown skinned so technically black is a logical assignation of colour, like white for any European. Any non-white person is usually black unless his fairer skin colour indicated otherwise.
Aymara use reeds because this is the best material of choice for their culture, as in those Africans who use reeds. Because reed is the tool of choice for boats is not too say African presence is close by! The high altitude is a major reason that African presence may be non-existant. The Aymara may have learnt reed building in the lowlands but spread to the highlands to excape enemies. WHo knows?
Exactly.
Posted by Hotep2u (Member # 9820) on 09 March, 2006 04:36 PM:
Greetings:
Well let me just say that Some People will never accept the facts so don't waste time on those who won't accept the facts.
It is a FACT that Eurocentrics historians have written NUMEROUS LIES towards history of Humanity.
It is a FACT that Eurocentric historians have DESTROYED evidence that did not fit with their lies that they try to pass off as history.
Numerous evidence has been IGNORED by Eurocentrics against the lies they try to pass as history.
So as a result of these lies being saturated in the MEDIA and the educational Institutions, most people right now are in a state of DENIAL towards the history of Afrikans. RACISM is taught in schools and the MEDIA not just in the neighborhood Supremacist organizations. Why are we so quick to attack the Afrocentrics and so slow to Criticize and chastize the Eurocentrics who spread RACISM and lies through the process of writing History?
What penalty is their for Eurocentric his-lie-storians who pass lies off as truth?
Why are people so quick to ignore early writers who had no problem writing about Afrikan Achievement in a positive manner?
NO ONE WILL STOP AFRIKANS FROM FINDING THE TRUTH ABOUT OUR PAST, so if you have a problem dealing with Positive achievements of Afrikans then you will be the one who gets ignored because RACISM must be DESTROYED in order for Humanity to progress.
Don't statues speak for themselves? The Historical writers don't count anymore? Linguistical connection doesn't mean anything? Archaelogical connections means no connection also?
If the abundance of evidence point to the Olmecs coming from West Afrika then what is the problem?
Hotep
Posted by SidiRom (Member # 10364) on 09 March, 2006 05:47 PM:
LOL Delude yourself all you want, but the evidecne does NOT point to West Africa.
Posted by SidiRom (Member # 10364) on 09 March, 2006 06:48 PM:
And don't confuse realism with Eurocentrism. Eurocentrism used to claim the Native cultres were started by wandering Egyptians or lost Jewish tribes.
Posted by Hotep2u (Member # 9820) on 09 March, 2006 07:54 PM:
Greetings:
Sidirom wrote:
quote: What hogwash. I find it ironic that The Aymara Mochica, etc that build totora boats have no reciprocality in Meso American or Amazonian Indigenous populations. And those statues are as amorphous as you can get. But you will see Africans in your soup. And I saw you jumped all over that Fuente-Magna Hoax.
Sidirom wrote:
quote: Myths do the exact same thing. Ever heard of the broken telephone game
Sidirom wrote:
quote: I've seen your linguistics shot down quite convincingly before. No need to see your claims
Sidirom wrote:
quote: Sure, it's a possibility, allthough i would want to read the text in Spanish. Accidental migrations are not in doubt. Japanese sailors have accidentaly made it to the Americas. But this is not migration, nor civilization starting. Most do not argue that on occassion people made it across, but there was no concerted migration, nor enough population to establish a civilization. It was a shipwreck. Could have been from the Barbary Estates. It still does not show a pre-colombian presence. Just the possibility of people coming over accidentaly. Which was never in dispute.
Sidirom wrote:
quote: Again though I would still want to read the direct quote
This is typical behavior of a TROLL just sitting on the sidelines TROLLIN, do you really think you are the only person reading the posts?
Sidirom you are on IGNORE but you fail to realize it, so you sit continue with the "one liners" those are opinions of yours so if you can't use evidence from a factual source to refute the evidence being presented by Clyde Winters then understand that you are just TROLLIN and your BIAS is clear for all to see.
Intelligent people would check to see if the posiblity exist for a sailing vessel to travel from West Afrika to South America and yes it is, here is the Current flow of the area between West Africa and South America.
Ignorant people will always express themselves in the only way they know how to express themselves which is by giving their useless opinions.
Sidirom you have given more than enough useless opinions,which shows you lack evidence to refute the evidence that is being presented.
Hotep.
Posted by SidiRom (Member # 10364) on 09 March, 2006 08:25 PM:
Possibility does not mean happening. nice try. Plenty of Eurpean ships also had possibilitiesw ofhitting those currents before,but they didn't. People just don't purposely ship into the unknown all the time.
Therecould have been Japanese in North America, Peruvians in Australia, the currents say so. But it didn't happen.
So spare me the coulda woulda and show hard evidence.
Posted by RU2religious (Member # 4547) on 09 March, 2006 09:23 PM:
quote:Originally posted by SidiRom:
quote:Originally posted by RU2religious: Lol your funny.... One again... these are stories that were handed down from my grandfather to me... and his grandfather handed it to him and his grandfather handed it to him. This was done so that we didn't forget our history...
Myths do the exact same thing. Ever heard of the broken telephone game?
quote:My grandfather said... if your trying to trace us back to the slave ships then you will be looking forever because we cannot be traced to the slave ships. I have traced my mothers father to the slave ship...[quote] Do you even know what that ancient ancestor looked like? LOL. For all you know the guy was Native American and it is just your indigenous side.
[quote]To this day I have not been able to trace my grandfather on my fathers side back to the slave ships. It is possible, especially if Columbus learned how to get to the Americas from West Africans..
Considering he didn't even know the Americas where there, shows how much the West Africans knew.
First and foremost the Americas weren't always known as Americas but as T.I i.e. Turtle Island. This is the name my forefather gave me and it is the name that I uses from time to time.
Secondly, a fantasy is when your grandfather is telling you that you come from aliens or that you were born white and then turned black. That is a ignorant and most foolish fantasy. My grandfather didn't give me a fantasy he gave us family history and the thing about that is... I don't have the family paperwork like you would like for us to have... thought we do have indian cards (all of us... my family)any further back I don't have information...
Posted by Hotep2u (Member # 9820) on 10 March, 2006 12:45 AM:
Greetings:
Sidirom is truly ignorant, the Map you posted did a excellent job of proving that the Coast off West Afrika would be the BEST point to sail from in order to reach South America. The Canary Currents PROVES that West AFrikans were situated at the easiest departure location in order to travel to South America. Let me give you a HINT *COLD AIR FALLS* and WARM AIR RISES so follow the Canary Currents and see where it leads exactly at the point that we find the major Olmec Civilizations.
What a suprise a Civilization located in West Afrika has a culture that makes Stone Head statues, This civilization located in West Afrika is also located at the easiest departure point to go from West Afrika to South America using the NATURAL CURRENT FLOW called the CANARY CURRENTS which leads exactly to south America and later on we find a Civilization in South America that has the same practice of Creating Stone Head Statues WOW what are the odds of those two FACTS being just a coincidence? The elephants are the key to the puzzle that's why the Eurocentric LIARS keep hiding the figures of Elephants and the Matador ancient idea is just too SPECULATIVE in my opinion, I'll just stick to the obvious that elephants are proof that the Olmecs were from Afrika so keep hiding the Statues because it only proves the point that Eurocentrics ARE LIARS, notice the noses being destroyed in Kemetic statues? Do you think that's a coincidence too?
Just three years ago, five African fishermen were caught in a storm and a few weeks later were washed up on the shores of South America. Two of the fishermen died, but three made it alive.
Eurocentrics are now borderline insane and delusional.
Hotep
Posted by SidiRom (Member # 10364) on 10 March, 2006 04:58 AM:
quote:Originally posted by RU2religious: First and foremost the Americas weren't always known as Americas but as T.I i.e. Turtle Island. This is the name my forefather gave me and it is the name that I uses from time to time.
Ttilpe Menatey, Ttilpe Haki
quote:Secondly, a fantasy is when your grandfather is telling you that you come from aliens or that you were born white and then turned black. That is a ignorant and most foolish fantasy. My grandfather didn't give me a fantasy he gave us family history and the thing about that is... I don't have the family paperwork like you would like for us to have... thought we do have indian cards (all of us... my family)any further back I don't have information...
Like the stories handed down of Indians living with Dinosaurs? Storytelling can be modified. Sorry but you still present no evidence of African Ancestry in pre-columbian times. Especially not in areas calling the land Turtle Island.
Posted by SidiRom (Member # 10364) on 10 March, 2006 05:40 AM:
quote:Originally posted by Hotep2u: Sidirom is truly ignorant, the Map you posted did a excellent job of proving that the Coast off West Afrika would be the BEST point to sail from in order to reach South America. The Canary Currents PROVES that West AFrikans were situated at the easiest departure location in order to travel to South America. Let me give you a HINT *COLD AIR FALLS* and WARM AIR RISES so follow the Canary Currents and see where it leads exactly at the point that we find the major Olmec Civilizations.
Same currents Europeans could have taken before and didn't. Possibility Does not indicate happening. No habitation of Africans was found on Cape Verde right on that migration route. No West African populations on the Canary islands. Only possible affinities to North Africa ar Phoenician or Berber. and only to 1000BC.
quote:What a suprise a Civilization located in West Afrika has a culture that makes Stone Head statues, This civilization located in West Afrika is also located at the easiest departure point to go from West Afrika to South America using the NATURAL CURRENT FLOW called the CANARY CURRENTS which leads exactly to south America and later on we find a Civilization in South America that has the same practice of Creating Stone Head Statues WOW what are the odds of those two FACTS being just a coincidence?
Funny how no statues are shown to show any resemblance with those of the Olmecs. Speculation is always entertaining. But no facts to support the claim.
quote:The elephants are the key to the puzzle that's why the Eurocentric LIARS keep hiding the figures of Elephants and the Matador ancient idea is just too SPECULATIVE in my opinion, I'll just stick to the obvious that elephants are proof that the Olmecs were from Afrika so keep hiding the Statues because it only proves the point that Eurocentrics ARE LIARS, notice the noses being destroyed in Kemetic statues? Do you think that's a coincidence too?
Yeah, that is why roman statues have broken noses as well. And they forgot to break noses of identical statues in other places. Wishful thinking is so amusing. As for the elephant claims they are hilarious. Some people forget the Tapir is still much alive.
Just three years ago, five African fishermen were caught in a storm and a few weeks later were washed up on the shores of South America. Two of the fishermen died, but three made it alive. Eurocentrics are now borderline insane and delusional. Hotep
Go look up what Eurocentrism means. Accidental migrations are one thing. This happened to a japanese guy as well. Doesn't mean the japanese have been coming over through history. Nice try.
Even Thor Heyerdhal, with knowledge of where he was trying to go, and modern technology on his Ra failed his first trip. Then he had Bolivians construct him his second boat the Ra II and succeeded crossing. He had modern equipment on those reed boats though.
Posted by Clyde Winters (Member # 10129) on 10 March, 2006 10:31 AM:
altakruri quote: ______________________________________________________________ Can anyone produce Mande art from Mauritania/Mali of this same time period, 1200 BCE - 200 CE, that's of the same worksmanship and representative style resembling either the Colosal Cabezos, ceramic, or jade art pieces of humans of the Xi era? Did the pre CE Mande play ball? __________________________________________________________________
It is very difficult to produce picture of artifacts discovered in the Sahara of mande manufacture because they are not published. But from the literature we know that the people around the time the Olmecs were making artifacts in a green stone similar to jade. Recently, archaeologist in Ivory Coast have discovered stone heads three feet tall they indicate that West Africans had the ability to scuplt stone heads.
Commentfor the article: The heads have yet to be accurately dated but similar stones in Senegal date back as far as 2,000 years.
``No one knows what role the heads played in ancient times,'' Niangoran-Bouah said.
``They are not the work of men known to us or our ancestors,'' said Ta-bi-Tra, a hunter at Gohitafla, now inhabited by Ivorian President Henri Konan Bedie's ruling Baoule tribe. Baoule warriors arrived there under Queen Abla Pokou in the 17th century, displacing Gouro tribes who in turn had pushed out the Wan culture in the 15th century.
``The Wan consider them to be ancestral objects,'' said Niangoran-Bouah, citing the stories of nearby Wan descendants, including a theory that the heads betrayed them to the enemy.
The heads are also seen as grave charms for Wan warriors, homes for dead mens' souls or guardian spirits and talismans.
``We make offerings for a safe voyage, to find a good partner or fight off evil sorcerers, eaters of souls, jealous people and poisoners,'' said one soothsayer. ``We trust them.''
Animal sacrifices in cult rituals ensured successful childbirth and stone heads still play a part in ritual exorcisms and purification of adulterers. One man described being inhabited by a spirit from stones surrounding his house. ``I have 13 children, they all come from the stones.''
Prehistoric stone heads have been found around the world, from Africa to Europe and America. Marahoue's are thought to be among the largest and oldest along Africa's Atlantic coast.
Ivorian standing stones are larger than average and found deeper in the ground than similar African examples, suggesting a greater age of up to 7,000 years, Niangoran-Bouah said.
Such African megaliths weighing between half a ton and 15 tons are found in a northwestern strip on the Mediterranean and pockets in a wide west-east sub-Saharan band between Senegal and Kenya. Villagers showed Reuters a 19-foot rock said to be one of the largest African megaliths.
.......
Posted by alTakruri (Member # 10195) on 10 March, 2006 12:57 PM:
Good photo and stuff! It's definitely a contribution to our knowledge of African art.
The pictured head is not like the Xi representative style. It's the detail that tells the story as the article states
quote:Prehistoric stone heads have been found around the world, from Africa to Europe and America.
Also the heads of the article are smaller (up to 3 ft high) and later (2000 years old) than the cabezas colosal (the smallest is a little under 4 ft high and the youngest San Lorenzo head is 2800 years old).
The total Xi art and architectural complex has neither precursors nor parallels in Mande 2nd century BCE Mauritania/Mali.
quote:Originally posted by Clyde Winters: altakruri quote: ______________________________________________________________ Can anyone produce Mande art from Mauritania/Mali of this same time period, 1200 BCE - 200 CE, that's of the same worksmanship and representative style resembling either the Colosal Cabezos, ceramic, or jade art pieces of humans of the Xi era? Did the pre CE Mande play ball? __________________________________________________________________
It is very difficult to produce picture of artifacts discovered in the Sahara of mande manufacture because they are not published. But from the literature we know that the people around the time the Olmecs were making artifacts in a green stone similar to jade.
Posted by Hotep2u (Member # 9820) on 10 March, 2006 01:04 PM:
Greetings
Sidirom wrote:
quote: Same currents Europeans could have taken before and didn't. Possibility Does not indicate happening. No habitation of Africans was found on Cape Verde right on that migration route. No West African populations on the Canary islands.
Sidirom posted a map and didn't even take time out to read the map They are not the same Current even the map posted by Sidirom shows this
The Portugal Current is a weak warm water current that flows south-easterly towards the coast of Portugal . The current results from the movement of water east caused by the North Atlantic Drift. The Portugal Current is inconsistent so someone cannot use the Portugal Current to travel to South America.
The Canary Current branches south from the North Atlantic Current and flows toward the South West about as far as Senegal where it turns West . The cool temperature is caused by the upwelling nutrient-rich water drawn in from below the surface by the current.
Unlike the Portugal Current which is inconsistent meaning it isn't strong all year round so not very reliable, the Canary Current is a consistent year round Current and it is *NOT* found off the coast of Portugal, the Canary Currents are FOUND OFF THE COAST OF WEST AFRIKA at it's strongest point, then flows south and turns towards the Western Hemisphsere after reaching the Canary islands. Sidirom thinks you can travel the Portugal Current to South America L L.
Sidirom is typical of someone who doesn't know much about Afrika yet they want to challenge a Afrocentric student, only to be embarrassed by the fact of their ignorance of Afrika.
Sidirom wrote:
quote: Only possible affinities to North Africa ar Phoenician or Berber. and only to 1000BC.
Typical opinion of a Eurocentric.
Sidirom wrote:
quote: Funny how no statues are shown to show any resemblance with those of the Olmecs. Speculation is always entertaining. But no facts to support the claim.
Clyde Winters has now put another piece of evidence for the haters to chew on
Sidirom if you don't have the evidence to show where the Japanese guy was coming from please drop the hear say, just because you said it was so doesn't mean that's a fact.
Hotep
Posted by SidiRom (Member # 10364) on 10 March, 2006 03:45 PM:
quote:Originally posted by Hotep2u: Sidirom posted a map and didn't even take time out to read the map They are not the same Current even the map posted by Sidirom shows this
The Portugal Current is a weak warm water current that flows south-easterly towards the coast of Portugal . The current results from the movement of water east caused by the North Atlantic Drift. The Portugal Current is inconsistent so someone cannot use the Portugal Current to travel to South America.
The Canary Current branches south from the North Atlantic Current and flows toward the South West about as far as Senegal where it turns West . The cool temperature is caused by the upwelling nutrient-rich water drawn in from below the surface by the current.
Unlike the Portugal Current which is inconsistent meaning it isn't strong all year round so not very reliable, the Canary Current is a consistent year round Current and it is *NOT* found off the coast of Portugal, the Canary Currents are FOUND OFF THE COAST OF WEST AFRIKA at it's strongest point, then flows south and turns towards the Western Hemisphsere after reaching the Canary islands. Sidirom thinks you can travel the Portugal Current to South America L L.
As usual, Hotep is so busy trying to impress himself he fails to notice that Portuguese boats crossed the exact same current he is speaking about. Only an idiot would think I was refering to a current off of Portugal.
quote:Sidirom is typical of someone who doesn't know much about Afrika yet they want to challenge a Afrocentric student, only to be embarrassed by the fact of their ignorance of Afrika.
While Hotep with his wannabe name wants to claim knowledge of Africa, I have actually been there. I deal in reality, not your Afrocentric mythology.
quote:Typical opinion of a Eurocentric.
Only if you consider the Berbers European. What a moron.
quote:Clyde Winters has now put another piece of evidence for the haters to chew onhttp://www.iol.ie/~afifi/BICNews/History/history1.htm
LOL, more claims to laugh at.
quote:Sidirom if you don't have the evidence to show where the Japanese guy was coming from please drop the hear say, just because you said it was so doesn't mean that's a fact.
Ocean Currents. We must also note the fact that ocean currents have had much to do with the peopling of Polynesia. In observing a map showing such currents it is plainly seen that these “rivers of the ocean” and their various offshoots, running in divers directions, must have had a considerable influence on the distribution of man throughout Polynesia. This is borne out by the observations of European voyagers. Taking the case of the famous “Black River,” a strong current running from the Japan seas across to the American coast, we have on record numerous cases of drift voyagers by this current reaching the west coast of North America. Thus in 1830 a Japanese vessel was wrecked on the coast of Vancouver Island, and a few years later another was wrecked on one of the Sandwich Islands. In 1815 Kotzebue found a distressed Japanese vessel off the Californian coast. She had been driven by a storm from the Japan Sea, and drifted across the Pacific for seventeen months. But three of her crew of thirty-five men remained alive; the others had perished from starvation.
The following passage is from Taylor's Te Ika a Mani: “In 1845 three Japanese were carried to Ningpo, in China, by the American frigate ‘St. Louis’; they had been blown or drifted right across the Pacific in a little junk from the coast of Japan all the way to Mexico, where they had resided two years. Dr. Pickering … states that a Japanese vessel some few years ago was fallen in with by a whaler in the North Pacific, another was wrecked on the Sandwich Isles, and a third drifted to the American coast, near the mouth of the Columbia River.”
Two Japanese vessels are known to have been carried to the Sandwich Isles. Wilson, in his work Prchistoric Man, notes the case of a Japanese vessel that was wrecked on the Oregon coast, the crew of which were found living among the Indians. About fifty years prior to the arrival of Cortes in Mexico a foreign vessel was wrecked on the west coast, where the crew lived for some time, to be eventually slain by the natives.
In Joly's Man before Metals we are told that on several occasions Eskimo have drifted in their light kayaks to the western shores of Europe, and that one of these craft is preserved in the museum at Aberdeen.
The following paragraph from the Wellington Evening Post of November, 1915, describes the latest-known case of a Japanese vessel drifting across the North Pacific: “Ten Japanese castaways blown off the Japanese coast in a gale three months ago
– 22 –
were rescued by a fisheries patrol boat off the coast of British Columbia. In a small dismasted schooner they had drifted across the North Pacific for fifty days, subsisting on a little food and rain-water. The Japanese sailors tried to reach land. At the end of July the schooner went to pieces on a reef, and the men drifted on to an uninhabited island of the Queen Charlotte Group on the wreckage of their vessel. They lived by fishing, keeping up fires day and night. Finally two of the men made an effort to reach an inhabited island on ratr and were picked up.”
This sort of thing must have begun in early times, for prior to 1637 the Japanese were adventurous navigators, and left their impress on the Caroline Group of Micronesia and other places. A drift of ninety to a hundred degrees is somewhat startling, and must be looked upon as an important factor in the distribution of the human race. Humbolt's Current, Mentor's Drift, the South Equatorial Current, Rossell's Drift, and others, with their refluxes and branch streams, must be credited with many movements of the Polynesian peoples.
Other instances of such west-to-east drifts of Japanese vessels across the Pacific are given in an article on “Buddhism in the Pacific” in Volume 51 of the Journal of the Royal Anthropological Institute. The writer refers to the maritime activities of the Chinese, Japanese, and Malays in early times. A brief and suggestive paragraph is as follows: “These instances are quoted to show how easily and how frequently such cases of straying vessels losing their way in the Pacific have occurred in modern times. The same conditions imply the same accidents in much earlier times.”
During the short run from Juan Fernandez to Easter Island, Behrens, who was with Roggewein, drifted 318 geographical miles to the westward of his supposed position. In passing over the same route the “Blossom” experienced a set of 270 miles in the short space of eighteen days.
When sailing northward from Easter Island La Perouse noted that ocean currents carried his vessels to the south-west at the rate of three leagues in twenty-four hours, “and afterwards changes to the east, running with the same rapidity, till in 7° north, when they again took their course to the westward; and on our arrival at the Sandwich Islands our longitude by account differed nearly 5° from that by observation; so that if like the ancient navigators, we had had no means of ascertaining the longitude by observation we should have placed the Sandwich Islands 5° more to the eastward.” All these drifts were owing to currents.
The following extract from a Wellington paper shows how we are gathering data concerning ocean currents: On roth September last, at 11 a.m., Privates H. A. Forrester and F. Goode east a bottle into the sea off the east side of Somes Island. The bottle contained the following written on a slip of paper: ‘Cast into the sea on Thursday, 10th September, 1915, by Privates H. A. Forrester and F. Goode, guards of Some Island internment camp. The interesting sequel to this is a reply now to hand from W. F.
– 23 –
Whiteman, wireless operator at Chatham Island, stating that the bottle was picked up by a Maori on the beach of the north coast of that island on 27th December. The writer states that the occurrence is very interesting, as it gives one some idea of the currents running between New Zealand and Chatham Island. When casting the bottle adrift the senders had no idea that it would reach the open sea, but hoped it would find its way to the Petone shore, as they were under the impression that the tide was drifting in that direction at the time. In this case a drift canoe from Wellington might have reached the Chathams.
Mariner relates a curious experience of his sojourn among the Tongans. On returning to Vavau with natives from another isle of the group, a dense fog came up and the wind changed. Mariner, who had a pocket compass, detected the change, but could not convince the natives that the canoe was heading away from Navau out into the ocean. At last, after running many miles on a wrong course, he persuaded them to follow his direction, and to their amazement they reached Vavau. They had declined to place any reliance on such a trifling affair as a pocket compass, but came to the conclusion that it was inspired by a god, or was a supernatural object in itself. It is clear that a beclouded sky was about the greatest danger that the Polynesian voyager encountered, when there was liable to be a change of wind. Although he largely relied on the heavenly bodies whereby to steer, yet he could get along without them fairly well so long as the wind did not shift and a fog descend, for he had the regular roll of the waves to steer by.
WHOA! Sidirom must be a true student of Stormfront because Sidirom is totally IGNORANT.
Sidirom wrote:
quote: As usual, Hotep is so busy trying to impress himself he fails to notice that Portuguese boats crossed the exact same current he is speaking about. Only an idiot would think I was refering to a current off of Portugal.
Incorrect a intelligent person would comprehend that if someone is sailing from Portugal to West Afrika then that person would have to navigate from the Portugal Currents unto the CANARY CURRENT,so to imply they sailed the exact same current and not specify what is defined as same curents is QUITE UNINTELLIGENT.
Let us re-examin the specific QUOTE and single out the comment in question.
Sidirom wrote:
quote:Same currents Europeans could have taken before and didn't. Possibility Does not indicate happening. No habitation of Africans was found on Cape Verde right on that migration route. No West African populations on the Canary islands. Only possible affinities to North Africa ar Phoenician or Berber. and only to 1000BC.
Sidirom you imply that the CANARY CURRENTS are EASILY ACCESSIBLE to Europeans which is *WRONG* The Portugal Current is the native current for Europeans who wish to sail to West Afrika and the Portugal Current is unreliable meaning the Portugal Currents are virtually non-existant at certain times of the year so this would mean that at certain times of the year the PORTUGAL CURRENTS will not be able to take a European from Portugal to West Afrika, instead the Portugal Currents at specific times of the year would take someone further into the Nothern Hemisphere even though they are sailing on the same Portugal Currents. Though only a intelligent person would recognize this.
For the record let it be known that Afrikan Moors were the ones who taught the Europeans of the route to travel from Europe to South America, because Europeans didn't know of the Canary Currents nor how to get to them from Europe because the Canary Currents DOES NOT flow from Europe, and also Europeans thought the Earth was FLAT and they would fall over the edge
Sidirom do you know what Oceanic Currents are?
Sidirom are you aware that each OCEANIC CURRENTS has a specific path or route?
WHOA! this is what can happen to someone who subscribes to Eurocentrism, they fail to COMPREHEND a simple discussion towards a SPECIFIC TOPIC.
Sidirom you are all over the place do you know how many different OCEANIC CURRENTS are located between JAPAN and South America?
Honestly Sidirom is borderline delusional and ignorant so I can't help you. Also for the record I would like Sidirom to know that monkeys,Baboons and numerous other primates have been to Afrika and that doesn't make those animals knowledgeable about Afrika, until you begin to read highly factually informative books, study the evidence and LEARN the TRUTH towards Afrika then and only then are you qualified to speak about Afrika.
READ A BOOK BEFORE YOU DEBATE WITH INTELLIGENT PEOPLE.
Hotep
Posted by SidiRom (Member # 10364) on 11 March, 2006 01:38 PM:
quote:Originally posted by Hotep2u: WHOA! Sidirom must be a true student of Stormfront because Sidirom is totally IGNORANT.
typical bullshit claim from an afrocentric. You are just like Stormfront followers.
quote:Incorrect a intelligent person would comprehend that if someone is sailing from Portugal to West Afrika then that person would have to navigate from the Portugal Currents unto the CANARY CURRENT,so to imply they sailed the exact same current and not specify what is defined as same curents is QUITE UNINTELLIGENT.
That wannabe, can't figure out what access to the same currents mean is not my fault. The fact that portugguese currents navigate into the Canary current, and the fact that portuguese and Slanish had a presence on the Canary islands means that they had knowledge of the Canary current. Only a complete moron would not figure that out.
quote:Sidirom you imply that the CANARY CURRENTS are EASILY ACCESSIBLE to Europeans which is *WRONG* The Portugal Current is the native current for Europeans who wish to sail to West Afrika and the Portugal Current is unreliable meaning the Portugal Currents are virtually non-existant at certain times of the year so this would mean that at certain times of the year the PORTUGAL CURRENTS will not be able to take a European from Portugal to West Afrika, instead the Portugal Currents at specific times of the year would take someone further into the Nothern Hemisphere even though they are sailing on the same Portugal Currents. Though only a intelligent person would recognize this.
More of the completely oblivious expressions of an idiot who does not realize the European presence on those islands.
quote:For the record let it be known that Afrikan Moors were the ones who taught the Europeans of the route to travel from Europe to South America, because Europeans didn't know of the Canary Currents nor how to get to them from Europe because the Canary Currents DOES NOT flow from Europe, and also Europeans thought the Earth was FLAT and they would fall over the edge
More typical ignorance from a wannabe historian. Any educated person knew the world was round. The dabete was as to the circumpherence of the Earth and what lay beyond. The Moors didn't teach Europeans any trans-atlantic routes as they have no record of knowing it themselves. And Europeans had a presence in the Canary Islands Since the time of Pliny the Roman Historian. SO their knowledge of the Canary Currents would have been quite plentiful. Spain and Italy have records dating to 1320 of presence in the Island. More than 100 years before the Columbus Voyage.
quote:Sidirom do you know what Oceanic Currents are? Sidirom are you aware that each OCEANIC CURRENTS has a specific path or route? WHOA! this is what can happen to someone who subscribes to Eurocentrism, they fail to COMPREHEND a simple discussion towards a SPECIFIC TOPIC.
LOL. Obviously more than you do. Keep trying to go for elementary school knowledge scapegoats.
Now go look at the Portuguese Current and What current it feeds into
The drifter trajectories show the confluence of the Portugal and Azores Currents into the Canary Current being part of the eastern recirculation of the subtropical gyre.
quote:Sidirom you are all over the place do you know how many different OCEANIC CURRENTS are located between JAPAN and South America?
Another idiotic strawman claim. Adress the article posted moron.
quote:Honestly Sidirom is borderline delusional and ignorant so I can't help you. Also for the record I would like Sidirom to know that monkeys,Baboons and numerous other primates have been to Afrika and that doesn't make those animals knowledgeable about Afrika, until you begin to read highly factually informative books, study the evidence and LEARN the TRUTH towards Afrika then and only then are you qualified to speak about Afrika.
And you obviously have the intelligence of those lower primates. You don't even know where Africa comes from probably. You are just a chimp trying to fit square blocks in the round holes.
quote:READ A BOOK BEFORE YOU DEBATE WITH INTELLIGENT PEOPLE. Hotep
Your hooked on phonics texts do not count as reading fool.
Posted by Hotep2u (Member # 9820) on 11 March, 2006 02:28 PM:
Greetings;
Sidirom wrote:
quote: That wannabe, can't figure out what access to the same currents mean is not my fault. The fact that portugguese currents navigate into the Canary current, and the fact that portuguese and Slanish had a presence on the Canary islands means that they had knowledge of the Canary current. Only a complete moron would not figure that out.
Foolish monkeys still doesn't know how to read, The Portugal Current system is supplied mainly by the intergyre zone in the Atlantic, a region of weak circulation bounded to the north by the North Atlantic Current and to the south by the Azores Current (Perez et al., 2001). This current system should be envisaged within a very broad perspective of the dynamics of eastern oceanic boundary layers as outflow from the Mediterranean Sea has a significant influence on the underlying water masses that are part of the PC system (Ambar & Fuiza, 1994). The PC system is also influenced by the more dominant neighboring Canary and Azores Currents (Perez et al., 2001). The literature cites several inconsistencies in the seasonal patterns of this current system. As noted by Maze and others (1997), "these apparently contradictory views reveal the need for a better definition of the Portugal Current in terms of lateral extent and possible temporal variability and should be addressed by repeated surveys in the periods of well-established winter and summer regimes."
The red arrows speak very clear of the Inconsistencies,also the need to better define the Portugal Current. Though a chimpanzee wouldn't realize this because a chimpanzee doesn't read or comprehend well as Sidirom as shown us. Tell Sidirom to sail the Portugal Currents in January and see where it leads
The idiot was warned and just like a IDIOT Sidirom fell for the trap.
the Flammarion woodcut. Flammarion's caption translates to "A medieval missionary tells that he has found the point where heaven and Earth meet..."
this European in the picture claimed to find the point where Heaven and the FLAT EARTH met.
Later Middle Ages By the 11th century, Europe had learned of Arab astronomy , and abundant records suggest that any doubts that Europeans had had in earlier times were generally eliminated. A few examples: the most important and widely taught theologian of the Middle Ages, Thomas Aquinas (1225–1274), believed in a spherical earth. Who taught the Europeans.
Racism will carry you Eurocentrics right back into the flat earth theories.
Hotep
Posted by SidiRom (Member # 10364) on 11 March, 2006 03:03 PM:
quote:Originally posted by Hotep2u: Foolish monkeys still doesn't know how to read
No you do not, obviously.
quote:The Portugal Current system is supplied mainly by the intergyre zone in the Atlantic, a region of weak circulation bounded to the north by the North Atlantic Current and to the south by the Azores Current (Perez et al., 2001). This current system should be envisaged within a very broad perspective of the dynamics of eastern oceanic boundary layers as outflow from the Mediterranean Sea has a significant influence on the underlying water masses that are part of the PC system (Ambar & Fuiza, 1994). The PC system is also influenced by the more dominant neighboring Canary and Azores Currents (Perez et al., 2001).[/i] [b]The literature cites several inconsistencies in the seasonal patterns of this current system. As noted by Maze and others (1997), "these apparently contradictory views reveal the need for a better definition of the Portugal Current in terms of lateral extent and possible temporal variability and should be addressed by repeated surveys in the periods of well-established winter and summer regimes." [/i] [quote] And inconsistencies do not change the fact of navigablilty or conection. Oh what a moron. Nor does it change the fact of Spanish and Portuguese presence on the Canary islands and [b]DIRECTLY IN CONTACT WITH THE CANARY CURRENT.
[quote]The red arrows speak very clear of the Inconsistencies,also the need to better define the Portugal Current. Though a chimpanzee wouldn't realize this because a chimpanzee doesn't read or comprehend well as Sidirom as shown us. Tell Sidirom to sail the Portugal Currents in January and see where it leads
LMAO. And here the the lil green monkey tries a strawman once again. With an assumption that seasonal changes would reflect on European seafaring AROUND THE WHOLE YEAR.
quote:The idiot was warned and just like a IDIOT Sidirom fell for the trap.
Lilgreen monkey is speaking to a mirror.
quote: the Flammarion woodcut. Flammarion's caption translates to "A medieval missionary tells that he has found the point where heaven and Earth meet..."
He ignores the key word 'returns'in the picture, or the fact that most knowledge of the world stayed encloistered in groups like the monks of Cluny. plebeian beliefs not withstanding.
The fact is your claim is false.
quote: this European in the picture claimed to find the point where Heaven and the FLAT EARTH met. Later Middle Ages By the 11th century, Europe had learned of Arab astronomy , and abundant records suggest that any doubts that Europeans had had in earlier times were generally eliminated. A few examples: the most important and widely taught theologian of the Middle Ages, Thomas Aquinas (1225–1274), believed in a spherical earth. Who taught the Europeans.
LOL Why don't you post the whole article you flase and incompetent little monkey?
Flat Earth From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Jump to: navigation, search An image from one of English writer John Gower's works (c.1400) shows him shooting the world, a sphere of earth, air, and water Enlarge An image from one of English writer John Gower's works (c.1400) shows him shooting the world, a sphere of earth, air, and water
The notion of a Flat Earth refers to the idea that the inhabited surface of Earth is flat, rather than curved (see Spherical Earth).
It is commonly assumed that people from early antiquity generally believed the world was flat, but by the time of Pliny the Elder (1st century) its spherical shape was generally acknowledged. At that time Ptolemy derived his maps from a curved globe and developed the system of latitude and longitude (see clime). His writings remained the basis of European astronomy throughout the Middle Ages.
The common misconception that people before the age of exploration believed that Earth was flat entered the popular imagination after Washington Irving's publication of The Life and Voyages of Christopher Columbus in 1828. In the United States, this belief persists in the popular imagination, and is even repeated in some widely read textbooks, including Thomas Bailey's The American Pageant, where it is stated that "The superstitious sailors ... grew increasingly mutinous...because they were fearful of sailing over the edge of the world" (Loewen, Lies My Teacher Told Me, p. 56).
A few early Christian writers questioned or even opposed the sphericity of the Earth on theological grounds, but several of these writers are not thought to have been influential in the Middle Ages due to a scarcity of references to their work in mediaeval writings. Even though Europe's view of the world between 600 and 1000 is difficult to determine, by the 1100s, at the latest, the geocentric model had supplanted any doubts about the Earth's sphericity in the minds of the learned people of Europe. This did not settle, however, the question of whether the antipodes were habitable, or even reachable.
Antiquity
Belief in a flat Earth is found in humankind's oldest writings. In early Mesopotamian thought the world was portrayed as a flat disk floating in the ocean, and this forms the premise for early Greek maps like those of Anaximander and Hecataeus.
By classical times an alternative idea, that Earth was spherical, had appeared. This was espoused by Pythagoras apparently on aesthetic grounds, as he also held all other celestial bodies to be spherical. Aristotle provided physical evidence for the spherical Earth:
* Ships actually recede over the horizon, disappearing hull-first. In a flat-earth model, they should simply get smaller and smaller until no longer visible, assuming that light travels in a straight line. * Travelers going south see southern constellations rise higher above the horizon. This is only possible if their "straight up" direction is at an angle to northerners' "straight up". Thus Earth's surface cannot be flat. * The border of the shadow of Earth on the Moon during the partial phase of a lunar eclipse is always circular, no matter how high the Moon is over the horizon. Only a sphere casts a circular shadow in every direction, whereas a circular disk casts an elliptical shadow in most directions.
Earth's circumference was estimated around 240 BC by Eratosthenes. Eratosthenes knew that in Syrene (now Aswan), in Egypt, the Sun was directly overhead at the summer solstice. He used geometry to come up with a circumference of 252,000 stades, which, depending on the length of the stadion unit, is within 2% and 20% of the actual circumference, 40,008 kilometres.
During this period Earth was generally thought of as divided into climes, with frigid climes at the poles and a deadly torrid clime at the equator. Beyond the torrid clime were the antipodes (people living on the opposite side of a spherical Earth, so called because their feet would be turned towards the opposite direction).
Lucretius was opposed to the concept of a spherical Earth, because he considered the idea of antipodes absurd. But by the 1st century, Pliny the Elder was in a position to claim that everyone agrees on the spherical shape of Earth (Natural History, 2.64), although there continued to be disputes regarding the nature of the antipodes, and how it is possible to keep the ocean in a curved shape. Interestingly, Pliny as an "intermediate" theory considers also the possibility of an imperfect sphere, "shaped like a pinecone" (Natural History, 2.65) [edit]
The Early Church
There is evidence that the spherical Earth was accepted by many Christians. For example, Emperor Theodosius II of the Byzantine Empire placed the globus cruciger (which depicts Earth as round) on his coins.
However, the antipodes (thought to be separated from the Mediterranean world by the uncrossable torrid clime) were difficult to reconcile with the Christian view of a unified human race descended from one couple and redeemed by a single Christ. Consequently, some of the Church Fathers questioned their existence and even the roundness of Earth. Saint Augustine (354-430) wrote:
"Those who affirm [a belief in antipodes] do not claim to possess any actual information; they merely conjecture that, since the Earth is suspended within the concavity of the heavens, and there is as much room on the one side of it as on the other, therefore the part which is beneath cannot be void of human inhabitants. They fail to notice that, even should it be believed or demonstrated that the world is round or spherical in form, it does not follow that the part of the Earth opposite to us is not completely covered with water, or that any conjectured dry land there should be inhabited by men. For Scripture, which confirms the truth of its historical statements by the accomplishment of its prophecies, teaches not falsehood; and it is too absurd to say that some men might have set sail from this side and, traversing the immense expanse of ocean, have propagated there a race of human beings descended from that one first man." (De Civitate Dei, 16.9)
Augustine denied that the antipodes were inhabited by men, not the idea of a round Earth. However, the phrase "even should it be believed or demonstrated that the world is round" (Latin: etiamsi figura conglobata et rotunda mundus esse credatur sive aliqua ratione monstretur) suggests that he was skeptical of the round Earth, and perhaps even that many others were as well.
A few authors directly opposed the round Earth: Cosmas Indicopleustes' world picture - flat earth in a Tabernacle. Enlarge Cosmas Indicopleustes' world picture - flat earth in a Tabernacle.
* Lactantius (245–325) called it "folly" because people on a sphere would fall down; * Saint Cyril of Jerusalem (315–386) saw Earth as a firmament floating on water (though in his case, the relevant quote is found in the course of a sermon to the newly baptized, and it is unclear whether he was speaking poetically or in a physical sense); * Saint John Chrysostom (344–408) saw a spherical Earth as contradictory to scripture; * Diodorus of Tarsus (d. 394) also argued for a flat Earth; * Severian, Bishop of Gabala, (d. 408); * The Egyptian monk Cosmas Indicopleustes (547) in his Topographia Christiana, where the Covenant Ark was meant to represent the whole universe, argued on theological grounds that the Earth was flat, a parallelogram enclosed by four oceans. It is likely that this description was intended to humorously illustrate what not to do when engaging in Biblical exegesis, rather than a true model for the earth[citation needed].
At least one early Christian writer, Basil of Caesarea (329–379), believed the matter to be theologically irrelevant. (Hexaemeron 9:1)
Different historians have argued either for very high (e.g. White) or very low (e.g. Jeffrey Russell) influence of these writers in the Middle Ages. Among today's historians, several of them are not thought to have been influential due to a scarcity of references to their work in mediaeval writings. [edit]
The Middle Ages [edit]
Early Middle Ages A globus cruciger: the earthly realm surmounted by the Christian cross. Enlarge A globus cruciger: the earthly realm surmounted by the Christian cross.
Europe's view of the world between 600 and 1000 is difficult to determine because of the general scarcity of records from that time and the primitive cartography: most medieval mappae mundi served as indices of geographical terms rather than navigational aids. Our best evidence comes from the writings of theologians:
* Isidore of Seville (560 – 636) taught that Earth was round, but shaped like a wheel, apparently thinking of a flat Earth (Etymologiae, XIV). However, Isidore refused to take a clear position on the matter, preferring to report other philosophers' opinions, and he also admitted the possibility of the antipodes' existence. Isidore's wheel analogy continued to be used by authors clearly favouring a spherical earth, e.g. the 9th century bishop Hrabanus Maurus who compared the habitable part of the northern hemisphere (Aristotle's northern temperate clime) with a wheel, as it were imagined as slice of the whole sphere. * Bede (c.672 – 735) wrote that Earth was round, and clearly indicated that it was round in the sense of a ball or sphere, rather than a flat disc. * Vergilius (c.700 – 784) thought "that beneath the Earth there was another world and other men, another Sun and Moon." Saint Boniface accused him of "teaching a doctrine in regard to the rotundity of the Earth, which was 'contrary to the Scriptures.'". Pope Zacharias decided that "if it be proved that he held the said doctrine, a council be held, and Vergilius expelled from the Church and deprived of his priestly dignity."[1] Vergilius succeeded in freeing himself from the charge, he later became a bishop and was canonised in the thirteenth century.
Of course, it was probably the priests in the pulpits, not the few noted intellectuals, who defined public opinion, and as they left no records it is difficult to tell what awareness the wider population may have had. However the symbolism of the orb (Globus cruciger), used in imperial regelia from the 5th century onwards, presupposes that at least the political establishment (which at that time was generally not literate and drew its world view precisely from such visual symbols) could relate to the concept of a spherical world. [edit]
Later Middle Ages
By the 11th century, Europe had learned of Arab astronomy, and abundant records suggest that any doubts that Europeans had had in earlier times were generally eliminated. A few examples: the most important and widely taught theologian of the Middle Ages, Thomas Aquinas (1225–1274), believed in a spherical earth. Hermannus Contractus (1013–1054) is among the earliest Christian scholars to estimate the circumference of Earth with Eratosthenes' method. In addition, Dante's Divine Comedy portrays Earth as a sphere.
The fact that the Elucidarius (c. 1120), an important manual for the instruction of low order clergy in the middle ages, explicitly refers to a spherical Earth supports the contention that the spherical shape of Earth was also common knowledge outside scholarly circles. Likewise, the fact that Bertold von Regensburg (mid-13th century) used the spherical Earth as a sermon illustration shows that he could assume this knowledge among his congregation. The sermon was held in the vernacular (i.e. German as opposed to Latin), and thus was not intended for a learned audience.
However, as late as 1400s, the Spanish theologian Tostatus disputed the existence of any unreachable antipodes[2]. [edit]
Modern times the Flammarion woodcut. Flammarion's caption translates to "A medieval missionary tells that he has found the point where heaven and Earth meet..." Enlarge the Flammarion woodcut. Flammarion's caption translates to "A medieval missionary tells that he has found the point where heaven and Earth meet..."
During the 19th century, the Romantic conception of a European "Dark Age" gave much more prominence to the Flat Earth model than it ever possessed historically. The widely circulated woodcut of a man poking his head through the firmament of a flat Earth to view the mechanics of the spheres, executed in the style of the 16th century cannot be traced to an earlier source than Camille Flammarion's L'Atmosphere: Météorologie Populaire (Paris, 1888, p. 163) [3]. The woodcut illustrates the statement in the text that a medieval missionary claimed that "he reached the horizon where the earth and the heavens met", an anecdote that may be traced back to Voltaire, but not to any known medieval source. In its original form, the woodcut included a decorative border that places it in the 19th century; in later publications, some claiming that the woodcut did, in fact, date to the 16th century, the border was removed. Flammarion, according to anecdotal evidence, had commissioned the woodcut himself. In any case, no source of the image earlier than Flammarion's book is known.
Russell, a professor of history at Santa Barbara who has written widely on mediaeval religion, heresy and witchcraft, explored the issue in Inventing the Flat Earth: Columbus and Modern Historians. Russell claims that the Flat Earth theory is a fable used to impugn pre-modern civilisation, especially that of the Middle Ages in Europe. Today essentially all professional mediaevalists agree with Russell that the "mediaeval flat earth" is a nineteenth-century fabrication, and that the few verifiable "flat earthers" were the exception.
As of the beginning of the 21st Century, there remain populations within rural cultures which, unexposed to technological civilisation, consider the world to be flat. With no long-distance communication requirements or other technological endeavours, their beliefs appear to suffice.
From a European perspective, Portuguese exploration of Africa and Asia in the 15th century removed any serious doubts, and Ferdinand Magellan's circumnavigation any remaining ones. The belief that Christopher Columbus's sailors feared they would fall off the edge of the world is erroneous: they were understandably uncertain about a voyage into the unknown, and were also worried that food supplies would run out. In fact, Columbus did not provide sufficient supplies to reach China or the East Indies, his original destination; and if America had not existed then his expedition might have died of starvation. Columbus believed the Earth to be much smaller than it is now known to be; about the size of Mars, in fact.
Some Christians in England and United States tried to revive Flat Earth thinking in the 19th century. When Joshua Slocum arrived in the Transvaal Republic during his solo circumnavigation of the world, President Kruger berated him, telling him "you don't mean around the world; it is impossible! You mean in the world!"
Modern people who do not accept the spherical Earth and base this opinion on Scripture do not represent a continuing school of Biblical exegesis, although some small groups such as the Flat Earth Society in the USA work hard to keep the concept alive, and have claimed a few thousand followers [4]. Charles K. Johnson ran the Flat Earth Society from his home in California until he died in 2001. [edit]
In fiction
In the fictional text adventure universe of Zork, Quendor is located on a flat planet held up by a giant Brogmoid.
Terry Pratchett's Discworld novels are set on a disc-shaped world resting on the backs of four huge elephants which are in turn standing on the back of an enormous turtle.
In Rudyard Kipling's The Village that Voted the Earth was Flat, the unnamed narrator and some friends are unjustly fined for a minor offence by a crooked village magistrate and his accomplices in the police. By way of revenge, they spread the rumour that a Parish Council meeting had voted in favour of a flat earth. The village is riduculed in the press, and a popular song entitled The Village that Voted the Earth was Flat sweeps the nation. When the narrator visits the House of Commons and observes the MPs singing the song, he reflects that he may have gone too far. [edit]
Notes
* Note 1: It was against this theory that George Best wrote his chapter entitled "Experiences and reasons of the Sphere, to prove all parts of the worlde habitable, and thereby to confute the position of the five zones" (A True Discourse, 1578).
[edit]
See also
* Islam and flat-earth theories * Antipodes * T and O map * Hollow earth * The Discworld series, written by Terry Pratchett * The Flat Earth Society
[edit]
Further reading
* Inventing the Flat Earth, Jeffrey Burton Russell, Praeger Paperback, 1997, ISBN 027595904X; see his summary * Andrew White, The Warfare Of Science With Theology (1896) * Gingerich, O. 1992. "Astronomy in the age of Columbus". Scientific American, 267(5), (November), 66-71. (An expansion of some of Russell’s historical material, with comments on the subsequent Copernican Revolution.) * Gould, S.J. 1996. The late birth of a flat Earth. In: Dinosaur in a haystack, Jonathan Cape, London, 3-40. (Reprinted from "The persistently flat Earth", Natural History, 103, March 1994, 12-19. Draws extensively from Russell and discusses the way a desire to see "progress" has led to the rewriting of history and to the advocacy of a warfare between science and religion). * Tyler, D.J. 1996. The impact of the Copernican Revolution on biblical interpretation, Origins, July (No. 21), 2-8. (Discusses the "language of appearance" used in the Bible and the way hermeneutical issues were clarified by the Copernican revolution. The principles developed in this article are directly applicable to any claim that the Bible "teaches a Flat Earth".)
CHAPTER 6 The Confusion Surrounding Christopher Columbus
The following has absolutely nothing to do with flat earth thinking. It is presented here only because some people still, incorrectly, believe that it does.
We've all heard the stories that many people around the time of Christopher Columbus believed the earth was flat and that discoverers would sail off the edge if they went to far. You may have heard this story in your early education. However, any incorrect beliefs about the Earth by Christopher Columbus and similar discovers were related to the earth's size, not it's shape. If anything, Columbus incorrectly believed the earth to be smaller than it truly is. This error was likely influenced by the works of Roger Bacon and Cardinal Pierre d'Ailly (see below). Others have have argued that the incorrect smaller size was presented intentionally as a way of silencing opposition to the voyage. This opposition came from three sources: those concerned that it couldn't be done; those concerned that it shouldn't be done; and those who held the purse strings.
American fiction writer Washington Irving's book entitled "The Life and Voyages of Christopher Columbus" (1828) is one of the primary reasons that some people today believe Columbus' voyage proved the earth wasn't flat. (See discussion in Chapter 4 - Flat Earth Myth Invented by Secular Writers?)
CONFUSION SURROUNDING COLUMBUS 1214- 1294 CE Roger Bacon - In his Opus Majus, he states "we must assume that the world has a spherical form". The chapter on geography addresses how much of the earth's surface is covered with water. Based on findings of Aristotle, Seneca and Ptolemy, he concludes that the world isn't very large, which is a colossal error that will effect geography and discoverers such as Columbus. He underestimates the size of the seas, for example, stating, "If, then, we follow Aristotle and Seneca, we must agree that the area of [otherwise] habitable land [in our hemisphere] that is covered by water must be quite small." He also states, " This water, the Ocean, extends from the west of Spain to the east of India, which is no great distance." [52]
As a side note of historical interest: Bacon was a Christian who thought the study of science and mathematics was profitable for the Church of God. He admonished scholars of his time for not making a thorough study of science. He wished they would give up the literal interpretation of the Bible and pointed out several passages in obvious contradiction to known facts. This antagonized the clergy and he was jailed for ten years. The Catholic Encyclopedia of of 1912 says he was "an author full of heresies and suspected views." [53] His writings were all but forgotten, except to Cardinal d'Ailly (see below). 1410 CE Cardinal Pierre d'Ailly - In his book Imago Mundi, he often quotes the work of Roger Bacon's Opus Majus, usually verbatim. However, he never credits Bacon. Imago Mundi, written in 1410, ignored all of the discoveries of the explorers in the 140 years since Bacon's work. It too came to the conclusion that the earth was much smaller than it is, for example, stating, "The west coast of Africa cannot be far removed from the east coast of India, for in both those countries elephants are found." Columbus viewed the world's size as d'Ailly did and often quoted from his work. If the Church had not believed in the smaller D'Ailly/Columbus sized earth, they might not have funded the exploration of the New World. [54] 1492 CE Christopher Columbus - Flat earther? No. The only geographical error that we can find true evidence of is in the size of the world, not its geometric shape. It appears that Columbus was guilty only of underestimating the earth's size and how far it was to "India" due to inaccurate calculations by previous persons. {See "Roger Bacon" and "Cardinal Pierre d'Ailly"} Columbus was clearly influenced by Cardinal Pierre d'Ailly's Imago Mundi. He carried a copy of Imago Mundiand made hundreds of annotations in it. [55]
quote:Racism will carry you Eurocentrics right back into the flat earth theories.
Olmec 
Mayan 
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Embarrassed]](redface.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
Correct me if I'm wrong but I don't believe that Europeans who outnumered slaves during colonial times have contributed that much genetic material to the Amerinds.
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
