Lately, there have been discussions on direct African links with ancient American cultures. There are claims about African inspirations of these cultures, e.g., pre-Olmec African cultures, and the Olmec culture itself. I've observed efforts at substantiating such claims, but does any one have anything "solid". There are also claims that west Africans from the middle periods, prior to Columbus' trip, made their way to America. There is apparently more than enough skepticism of the capacity of Africans to engage in voluntary long distance travel in the periods in question; matter of fact, in light of recent anthropological findings, it is claimed that west Africans have definitely been in the "New World" by the 16th century, but as "involuntary" travellers:
Now, digging in a colonial era graveyard in one of the oldest European cities in Mexico, archaeologists have found what they believe are the oldest remains of slaves brought from Africa to the New World. The remains date between the late-16th century and the mid-17th century, not long after Columbus first set foot in the Americas...
The African origin of the slaves was determined through the reading of telltale signatures locked at birth into the tooth enamel of individuals by strontium isotopes, a chemical which enters the body through the food chain as nutrients pass from bedrock through soil and water to plants and animals. The isotopes found in the teeth are an indelible signature of birthplace, as they can be directly linked to the bedrock of specific locales, giving archaeologists a powerful tool to trace the migration of individuals on the landscape.
The new study, which was supported by the National Science Foundation, draws on isotope ratios found in the teeth of four individuals from among 180 burials found in a multiethnic burial ground associated with the ruins of a colonial church in Campeche, Mexico, a port city on the Yucatan Peninsula...
"This is the earliest documentation of the African Diaspora in the New World," says Price, a UW-Madison professor of anthropology. "It does mean that slaves were brought here almost as soon as Europeans arrived."
In early colonial Mexico, Campeche was an important Spanish gateway to the New World. It served as a base for exploration and conquest and was a key defensive outpost in a region infested with pirates. Presumably, slaves from the infamous West African port of Elmina were shipped to Campeche where they may have been used as domestic servants.
The discovery of the remains of slaves born in Africa from such an early date shows that slavery became an integral aspect of the New World economy not long after the Conquistadors completed the subjugation of Mexico, says Price.
Archaeological and historical evidence, including a map of colonial Campeche, suggest the graveyard was in use from about 1550 to the late 1600s. It was uncovered, along with the foundations of a colonial era church, in 2000 by construction workers digging around Campeche's central park. The site was excavated under the direction of Tiesler.
The archaeologists were drawn to some of the individuals buried in the colonial cemetery because of distinctive dental mutilations, a decorative practice characteristic of Africa.
Burton and Price, in collaboration with Tiesler, are conducting a much broader study of human mobility in ancient Mesoamerica using isotopic analysis. They conducted a blind study of the isotopic content of teeth from 10 individuals from the Campeche churchyard. Four of the samples, says Burton, "were like something we'd never seen."
The ratios, he explains, were well off the charts for anyone born in Mesoamerica. Instead, they reflected the geology of West Africa, which is underlain by a massive shield of ancient rock, much older than the geology of Mexico and Central America.
The chemical analysis, combined with the distinctive dental mutilation, provides strong evidence that "these folks were born in Africa and brought to the New World," says Price. " The thing that impresses me is that it was happening so early. "
African slaves were brought to the New World as the Spanish needed labor to harvest timber and work in the mines that enriched Spain. Early in their rule, the Spanish enslaved Indians to perform heavy labor, but they turned to the African slave trade as diseases introduced by Europeans decimated native peoples.
Article - courtesy of Terry Devitt, and the University of Wisconsin - Madison.
The goal here, is not to get to the bottom of whether ancient American cultures are those of settled Africans, but of 'any' African presence in the region, prior to Columbus' supposed "discovery": what 'strong' evidences are available of migrations directly from Africa, from pre-Columbian periods? Here's the chance to put them forth in an orderly manner, and allow for analysis of the specifics of each material.
Posted by Clyde Winters (Member # 10129) on :
Supercar quote: _____________________________________________________________________ The goal here, is not to get to the bottom of whether ancient American cultures are those of settled Africans, but of 'any' African presence in the region, prior to Columbus' supposed "discovery": what 'strong' evidences are available of migrations directly from Africa, from pre-Columbian periods? Here's the chance to put them forth in an orderly manner, and allow for analysis of the specifics of each material. __________________________________________________________________
1. Wiercinski's discovery of West African skeletons.
2. Leo Wiener wrote a three volume history of African connections with the MesoAmericans. Wiener's discovery of West African substratum in Meso-American languages relating to religion, culture, and tabacco.
3. Rafinesque's discovery that the Mayan writing may have been influenced by the Libyco-Berber writing used in North and West Africa.
4. Rafinesque's review of early Spanish literature relating to American tribes that indicated that many of these tribes had identical names to African tribes in Ghana.
5. Wiener's discovery that the writing on the Tuxtla statuette was written in ancient writing used by the Mande speaking people in West Africa.
6.Discovery of inscribed celts for LaVenta.
7. Winters' discovery that the celts from LaVenta were inscribed in ancient Manding. characters.
8. Winters' discovery that the Vai writing system was created in ancient times per the oral tradition concerning the creation of the Vai writing system recorded by Delafosse; and the research of Hau, who established that Mande writing systems existed in pre-Islamic times.
9. Winters' discovery that you could use the phonetic values of the Vai script, to read Olmec inscriptions.
10. QUATREFAGES' discovery of African tribes in Mexico, like the Otomi who speak a language genetically related to Malinke-Bambara.
11. Winters' discovery of Malinke-Bambara as a substratum language in the Mayan family of languages.
12. H.G. Lawrence's discovery of Mande colonies in the Americas following the exploration of the Americas by Abubakari, especially the use of guanin as a term for a gold alloy.
13. Winters' decipherment of Mande inscriptions along waterways throughout North and South America, which appear to date back to Abubakari's exploration of the Americas.
The discovery by archaeologist of Olmec artifacts inscribed with Libyco-Berber/Vai/Mande symbols.
14. Winters' ability to decipher Olmec writing/symbols using the Vai script and the Malinke-Bambara language.
15. Jeffrey's discussion of the spread of maize cultivation by Mande people in West Africa.
.....
Posted by Supercar (Member # 6477) on :
quote:Originally posted by Clyde Winters:
1. Wiercinski's discovery of West African skeletons.
2. Leo Wiener wrote a three volume history of African connections with the MesoAmericans. Wiener's discovery of West African substratum in Meso-American languages relating to religion, culture, and tabacco.
3. Rafinesque's discovery that the Mayan writing may have been influenced by the Libyco-Berber writing used in North and West Africa.
4. Rafinesque's review of early Spanish literature relating to American tribes that indicated that many of these tribes had identical names to African tribes in Ghana.
5. Wiener's discovery that the writing on the Tuxtla statuette was written in ancient writing used by the Mande speaking people in West Africa.
6.Discovery of inscribed celts for LaVenta.
7. Winters' discovery that the celts from LaVenta were inscribed in ancient Manding. characters.
8. Winters' discovery that the Vai writing system was created in ancient times per the oral tradition concerning the creation of the Vai writing system recorded by Delafosse; and the research of Hau, who established that Mande writing systems existed in pre-Islamic times.
9. Winters' discovery that you could use the phonetic values of the Vai script, to read Olmec inscriptions.
10. QUATREFAGES' discovery of African tribes in Mexico, like the Otomi who speak a language genetically related to Malinke-Bambara.
11. Winters' discovery of Malinke-Bambara as a substratum language in the Mayan family of languages.
12. H.G. Lawrence's discovery of Mande colonies in the Americas following the exploration of the Americas by Abubakari, especially the use of guanin as a term for a gold alloy.
13. Winters' decipherment of Mande inscriptions along waterways throughout North and South America, which appear to date back to Abubakari's exploration of the Americas.
The discovery by archaeologist of Olmec artifacts inscribed with Libyco-Berber/Vai/Mande symbols.
14. Winters' ability to decipher Olmec writing/symbols using the Vai script and the Malinke-Bambara language.
15. Jeffrey's discussion of the spread of maize cultivation by Mande people in West Africa.
.....
I'm one who hasn't generally delved much into details of MesoAmerican cultures, and so, some of these references will be looked at, but for now, you've got my attention on "Wiercinski's discovery of West African skeletons"; what are the specifics provided herein on the determinants of the studied specimens as pre-Columbian immigrants directly from Africa? Please share it.
Posted by SidiRom (Member # 10364) on :
LOL, Every one of those claims has been addressed and debunked many right on this board, but you will keep on regurgitating them Ad Nauseum. Posted by SidiRom (Member # 10364) on :
quote:Originally posted by Supercar: I'm one who hasn't generally delved much into details of MesoAmerican cultures, and so, some of these references will be looked at, but for now, you've got my attention on "Wiercinski's discovery of West African skeletons"; what are the specifics provided herein on the determinants of the studied specimens as pre-Columbian immigrants directly from Africa? Please share it.
Just do a search on Wiercinski on this very board. You will see his claims addressed.
Posted by Supercar (Member # 6477) on :
quote:Originally posted by SidiRom: LOL, Every one of those claims has been addressed and debunked many right on this board, but you will keep on regurgitating them Ad Nauseum.
You certainly don't have to address Winter's posts if you don't want to. Nobody is putting a gun to your head to do so!
I opened the topic, because other threads seem to go into different directions; here, I would like to see orderly presentation of so-called 'strong' evidence in favor of 'voluntary' pre-Columbian African migrations, not necessarily to conclude on African origins for Pre-Columbian MesoAmerican cultures, but merely of their 'presence' in the region, during the times in question. If you have something in this regard, please present it, or else, if you'd like to argue against what has been [or will be] presented, please do so; anything short of this, is unacceptable.
Posted by Clyde Winters (Member # 10129) on :
supercar quote: ________________________________________________________________ I'm one who hasn't generally delved much into details of MesoAmerican cultures, and so, some of these references will be looked at, but for now, you've got my attention on "Wiercinski's discovery of West African skeletons"; what are the specifics provided herein on the determinants of the studied specimens as pre-Columbian immigrants directly from Africa? Please share it. _________________________________________________________________
I have put Wiercinski's paper on the web. Read the last page first and then go back to the beginning so you can read the paper from beginning to end.
When a study breaks human variations into strict disparate and supposedly invariable biological entities, it can only lead to faulty conclusions. In this case, race is defined in three terms, which quite likely [and contradictory to the purpose of the superficial classifications in the first place] encompass variant specimens under the same bracket, but separated from those placed under the other. Add to this, the very limited variety of specimens used for comparative analysis [which will be specified shortly]. Human populations in the various geographical regions, are largely clinal in nature, as a product of proximity and the associated interactions between populations, not to mention recent common ancestry as a factor. So, comparing populations separated by great/extreme geographical distance and a great deal of time depth [when compared to other designated populations], will inevitably result in inaccurate/questionable conclusions, as it leads to disregard for the aforementioned factors. Here, Mexican crania from the pre-classic and classic period are compared to very geographically distant populations, which needless to say, may well have significant time of divergences [used here, in the context of separation of populations] from a common ancestral population(s), not to mention that the specimens selected for comparison with the Mexican series, come from single regions in two continents [one in Africa, one in East Asia, and one in the European subcontinent], namely Uganda, Mongolia and Poland. Common ancestry from southeast Asia, including Australo-Melanesian & Polynesian regions, seems to have been overlooked; populations which are quite likely to have lesser time of divergence (splitting of populations) than the three aforementioned populations, i.e., with regards to early ancient Americans; hence, logical [past & contemporary] candidates for comparative analysis. No mention of west African specimens either, to the extent of what I’ve read in the provided link; these are supposed to be the people of particular interest, in finding out whether they had reached America during the Pre-Columbian periods.
So, what new evidence, or ‘incompletely addressed’ aspect of an already provided evidence [e.g. if from the list], needs to be considered in our quest to establish direct migrations from Africa to the Americas in the pre-Columbian periods? Remember, accomplishments of Africans, even on their own continent, are almost always subject to one of the most stringent standards of scrutiny, if they are to gain any acknowledgement within Euro-circles, if not grudging acceptance!
Posted by Clyde Winters (Member # 10129) on :
supercar quote: __________________________________________________________________ So, comparing populations separated by great/extreme geographical distance and a great deal of time depth [when compared to other designated populations], will inevitably result in inaccurate/questionable conclusions, as it leads to disregard for the aforementioned factors. Here, Mexican crania from the pre-classic and classic period are compared to very geographically distant populations, which needless to say, may well have significant time of divergences [used here, in the context of separation of populations] from a common ancestral population(s), not to mention that the specimens selected for comparison with the Mexican series, come from single regions in two continents [one in Africa, one in East Asia, and one in the European subcontinent], namely Uganda, Mongolia and Poland. Common ancestry from southeast Asia, including Australo-Melanesian & Polynesian regions, seems to have been overlooked; populations which are quite likely to have lesser time of divergence (splitting of populations) than the three aforementioned populations, i.e., with regards to early ancient Americans; hence, logical [contemporary] candidates for comparative analysis. No mention of west African specimens either, to the extent of what I’ve read in the provided link; these are supposed to be the people of particular interest, in finding out whether they had reached America during the Pre-Columbian periods. _________________________________________________________________
The comparison of racial groups outside of Mexico makes his study significant and reliable in establishing an African origin for the Olmecs. It is reliable because the sample he used did not include contemporary Mexicans who have 75% African heritage.
Another good feature of the Wiercinski paper was the use of photographs to suppliment the cranial evidence. These photographs of Olmec types via Olmec are provide graphic evidence for the various African types found among the Olmec population. Equatorial
The pictorial evidence supporting the cranial evidence make it clear that Olmec were predominately African. The Subpacific group typified by figurines from Las Bocas indicate that the people of Las Bocas may represent the early migration of Southeast Asian and Pacific people to Mexico.
Posted by rasol (Member # 4592) on :
quote:So, comparing populations separated by great/extreme geographical distance and a great deal of time depth [when compared to other designated populations], will inevitably result in inaccurate/questionable conclusions, as it leads to disregard for the aforementioned factors.
Yes, obviously.
Posted by Clyde Winters (Member # 10129) on :
supercar quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- So, comparing populations separated by great/extreme geographical distance and a great deal of time depth [when compared to other designated populations], will inevitably result in inaccurate/questionable conclusions, as it leads to disregard for the aforementioned factors. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
rasol quote:
Yes, obviously. _____________________________________________________________ This strange rasol on another thread you appear to accept the comparison of ancient American and modern African, Melanesian and Australia skulls as a valid methodology.
Make up your mine.
quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Originally posted by rasol:
Skulls in South America Tell New Migration Tale By Bjorn Carey LiveScience Staff Writer posted: 12 December, 2005 5:01pm ET
The skulls belonging to the earliest known South Americans—or Paleo-Indians—had long, narrow crania, projecting jaws, and low, broad eye sockets and noses. Drastically different from American Indians, these skulls appear more similar to modern Australians, Melanesians, and Sub-Saharan Africans. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------------
Cranial morphology of early Americans from Lagoa Santa, Brazil: Implications for the settlement of the New World Walter A. Neves and Mark Hubbe Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, December 20, 2005
Comparative morphological studies of the earliest human skeletons of the New World have shown that, whereas late prehistoric, recent, and present Native Americans tend to exhibit a cranial morphology similar to late and modern Northern Asians (short and wide neurocrania; high, orthognatic and broad faces; and relatively high and narrow orbits and noses), the earliest South Americans tend to be more similar to present Australians, Melanesians, and Sub-Saharan Africans (narrow and long neurocrania; prognatic, low faces; and relatively low and broad orbits and noses). However, most of the previous studies of early American human remains were based on small cranial samples. Herein we compare the largest sample of early American skulls ever studied (81 skulls of the Lagoa Santa region) with worldwide data sets representing global morphological variation in humans, through three different multivariate analyses. The results obtained from all multivariate analyses confirm a close morphological affinity between South-American Paleoindians and extant Australo-Melanesians groups, supporting the hypothesis that two distinct biological populations could have colonized the New World in the Pleistocene/Holocene transition.
Full Text File
Posted by SidiRom (Member # 10364) on :
quote:Originally posted by Supercar: When a study breaks human variations into strict disparate and supposedly invariable biological entities, it can only lead to faulty conclusions. In this case, race is defined in three terms, which quite likely [and contradictory to the purpose of the superficial classifications in the first place] encompass variant specimens under the same bracket, but separated from those placed under the other. Add to this, the very limited variety of specimens used for comparative analysis [which will be specified shortly]. Human populations in the various geographical regions, are largely clinal in nature, as a product of proximity and the associated interactions between populations, not to mention recent common ancestry as a factor. So, comparing populations separated by great/extreme geographical distance and a great deal of time depth [when compared to other designated populations], will inevitably result in inaccurate/questionable conclusions, as it leads to disregard for the aforementioned factors. Here, Mexican crania from the pre-classic and classic period are compared to very geographically distant populations, which needless to say, may well have significant time of divergences [used here, in the context of separation of populations] from a common ancestral population(s), not to mention that the specimens selected for comparison with the Mexican series, come from single regions in two continents [one in Africa, one in East Asia, and one in the European subcontinent], namely Uganda, Mongolia and Poland. Common ancestry from southeast Asia, including Australo-Melanesian & Polynesian regions, seems to have been overlooked; populations which are quite likely to have lesser time of divergence (splitting of populations) than the three aforementioned populations, i.e., with regards to early ancient Americans; hence, logical [past & contemporary] candidates for comparative analysis. No mention of west African specimens either, to the extent of what I’ve read in the provided link; these are supposed to be the people of particular interest, in finding out whether they had reached America during the Pre-Columbian periods.
So, what new evidence, or ‘incompletely addressed’ aspect of an already provided evidence [e.g. if from the list], needs to be considered in our quest to establish direct migrations from Africa to the Americas in the pre-Columbian periods? Remember, accomplishments of Africans, even on their own continent, are almost always subject to one of the most stringent standards of scrutiny, if they are to gain any acknowledgement within Euro-circles, if not grudging acceptance!
Fair analysis
Posted by SidiRom (Member # 10364) on :
Nice try. Rasshole is mentiong current studies and genetics, not just an outdated study by a scientist who was not considered accurate in his own time. And your pictures of what you CLAIM to be African looking (but are equally Native American looking people] as 'proof' is highly entertaining. With that in mind, i could easily use tons of Egyptian art to claim Egyptians were native american. Posted by Supercar (Member # 6477) on :
quote:Originally posted by Clyde Winters: The comparison of racial groups outside of Mexico makes his study significant and reliable in establishing an African origin for the Olmecs. It is reliable because the sample he used did not include contemporary Mexicans who have 75% African heritage.
Are you suggesting that because contemporary Mexicans supposedly have 75% African heritage, this would have skewed the results in favor of affitinies towards Africans, and hence, the results would easily be questioned? I get the impression that, you are saying that, as a result, gauging of Affinities of the ancient Mexicans with Africans would be best served, without contemporary Mexicans. The question remains; how does comparing contemporary Polish, Ugandaian, or Mongolian with pre-classic and classic Mexican crania serve us, in implying west African presence in Olmecs, in light of what I already mentioned?
quote:Clyde Winters: This strange rasol on another thread you appear to accept the comparison of ancient American and modern African, Melanesian and Australia skulls as a valid methodology.
Make up your mine
The point is that, modern Melanesian, Australian and sub-Saharan African crania overlap in many ways than they do with other groups like northern Eurasians, and hence, singling out Africans as unequivocally present in ancient American crania, like those of the Olmecs, makes no sense. Since these groups overlap, while the ancient crania are likely to lean more towards those of modern Australo-Melanesians than modern African groups, why come to the conclusions that Africans were "definitely" among the Olmecs?
Posted by Clyde Winters (Member # 10129) on :
supercar quote: _________________________________________________________________ The point is that, modern Melanesian, Australian and sub-Saharan African crania overlap in many ways than they do with other groups like northern Eurasians, and hence, singling out Africans as unequivocally present in ancient American crania, like those of the Olmecs, makes no sense. Since these groups overlap, while the ancient crania are likely to lean more towards those of modern Australo-Melanesians than modern African groups, why come to the conclusions that Africans were "definitely" among the Olmecs?________________________________________________________________ You come to this conclusion because of the fact that if the measurement of crania from Olmec times match the measurements of subsaharan African crania the two crania are genetically related. This was the conclusion arrived at by the Brazilians when they compared a 12,000 year old skull to contemporary African skulls. The skulls were separated in time by thousands of years but given their analagous features they were found to be related.
quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Originally posted by rasol:
Skulls in South America Tell New Migration Tale By Bjorn Carey LiveScience Staff Writer posted: 12 December, 2005 5:01pm ET
The skulls belonging to the earliest known South Americans—or Paleo-Indians—had long, narrow crania, projecting jaws, and low, broad eye sockets and noses. Drastically different from American Indians, these skulls appear more similar to modern Australians, Melanesians, and Sub-Saharan Africans. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Myra quote: ---------------------
Cranial morphology of early Americans from Lagoa Santa, Brazil: Implications for the settlement of the New World Walter A. Neves and Mark Hubbe Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, December 20, 2005
Comparative morphological studies of the earliest human skeletons of the New World have shown that, whereas late prehistoric, recent, and present Native Americans tend to exhibit a cranial morphology similar to late and modern Northern Asians (short and wide neurocrania; high, orthognatic and broad faces; and relatively high and narrow orbits and noses), the earliest South Americans tend to be more similar to present Australians, Melanesians, and Sub-Saharan Africans (narrow and long neurocrania; prognatic, low faces; and relatively low and broad orbits and noses). However, most of the previous studies of early American human remains were based on small cranial samples. Herein we compare the largest sample of early American skulls ever studied (81 skulls of the Lagoa Santa region) with worldwide data sets representing global morphological variation in humans, through three different multivariate analyses. The results obtained from all multivariate analyses confirm a close morphological affinity between South-American Paleoindians and extant Australo-Melanesians groups, supporting the hypothesis that two distinct biological populations could have colonized the New World in the Pleistocene/Holocene transition.
Full Text File
Posted by Supercar (Member # 6477) on :
quote:Originally posted by Clyde Winters: supercar quote: _________________________________________________________________ The point is that, modern Melanesian, Australian and sub-Saharan African crania overlap in many ways than they do with other groups like northern Eurasians, and hence, singling out Africans as unequivocally present in ancient American crania, like those of the Olmecs, makes no sense. Since these groups overlap, while the ancient crania are likely to lean more towards those of modern Australo-Melanesians than modern African groups, why come to the conclusions that Africans were "definitely" among the Olmecs?________________________________________________________________
You come to this conclusion because of the fact that if the measurement of crania from Olmec times match the measurements of subsaharan African crania the two crania are genetically related. This was the conclusion arrived at by the Brazilians when they compared a 12,000 year old skull to contemporary African skulls. The skulls were separated in time by thousands of years but given their analagous features they were found to be related.
It has already been pointed out to you, that the earliest Americans bear closer resemblance to not only modern tropical African groups, but also Melanesians and aboriginal Australians. The latter two, are among the populations that have been separated from Africans the longest, not to mention now dwell at regions of great distance from Africans. So, how can resemblance of cranial features of the early Americans imply close genetic relatedness between the mentioned groups?
Posted by rasol (Member # 4592) on :
Exactly right Supercar - I really don't know what Winters hopes to gain by misinterpreting data.
Posted by rasol (Member # 4592) on :
quote:Clyde Winters: This strange rasol on another thread you appear to accept the comparison of ancient American and modern African, Melanesian and Australia skulls as a valid methodology.
Make up your mine
quote:Supercar: The point is that, modern Melanesian, Australian and sub-Saharan African crania overlap in many ways than they do with other groups like northern Eurasians, and hence, singling out Africans as unequivocally present in ancient American crania, like those of the Olmecs, makes no sense. Since these groups overlap, while the ancient crania are likely to lean more towards those of modern Australo-Melanesians than modern African groups, why come to the conclusions that Africans were "definitely" among the Olmecs?
Again correct Supercar.
Either Dr. Winters is pulling our legs, or he simply doesn't understand modern anthropology, and so does not fathom what you are saying.
Posted by Supercar (Member # 6477) on :
I am trying to get advocates of pre-columbian African migrations into the "New World" to see that, "possibility" isn't enough, especially where Africans are concerned; you need something solid! This, in my opinion, is what seems to be missing in the proposed evidences thus far mentioned in the discussions of direct African links with the "New World" prior to European invasions into the region.
Posted by Clyde Winters (Member # 10129) on :
quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Supercar: The point is that, modern Melanesian, Australian and sub-Saharan African crania overlap in many ways than they do with other groups like northern Eurasians, and hence, singling out Africans as unequivocally present in ancient American crania, like those of the Olmecs, makes no sense. Since these groups overlap, while the ancient crania are likely to lean more towards those of modern Australo-Melanesians than modern African groups, why come to the conclusions that Africans were "definitely" among the Olmecs? --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
rasol quote: Again correct Supercar.
Either Dr. Winters is pulling our legs, or he simply doesn't understand modern anthropology, and so does not fathom what you are saying. _________________________________________________________________
You don't know what you're talking about. If Wiercinski says the Olmec skeletons were African and the other measurements add up to African persons I can say they were African because they were Africans. You can't change what he said because they don't fit you're Eurocentric view of when Africans first came to America.
Posted by rasol (Member # 4592) on :
^ We understand quite well because we keep up with *current* peer review scientific study.
You rely on bibliographic references from outdated works and even then, mostly the scholars you mis-cite don't even agree with you to begin with.
Please try to keep up with current scientific findings:
Genet. Mol. Biol. vol.22 n.4 São Paulo Dec. 1999 MORPHOLOGICAL AFFINITIES OF THE EARLIEST KNOWN AMERICAN
Walter A. Neves1, Joseph F. Powell2, Andre Prous3,
ABSTRACT The first South Americans show a clear resemblance to modern South Pacific and African populations, while the first North Americans seem to be at an unresolved morphological position between modern South Pacific and Europeans. In none of these analyses the first Americans show any resemblance to either northeast Asians or modern native Americans. So far, these studies have included affirmed and putative early skeletons thought to date between 8,000 and 10,000 years B.P. In this work the extra-continental morphological affinities of a Paleo-Indian skeleton well dated between 11,000 and 11,500 years B.P. (Lapa Vermelha IV Hominid 1, or "Luzia") is investigated, using as comparative samples Howells' (1989) world-wide modern series and Habgood's (1985) Old World Late Pleistocene fossil hominids.
In the first case, Lapa Vermelha IV Hominid 1 exhibited an undisputed morphological affinity firstly with Africans and secondly with South Pacific populations.
In the second comparison, the earliest known American skeleton had its closest similarities with early Australians, Zhoukoudian Upper Cave 103, and Taforalt 18.
The results obtained clearly confirm the idea that the Americas were first colonized by a generalized Homo sapiens population which inhabited East Asia in the Late Pleistocene
Dr. Winters I have simple questions for you.
Do you understand what the above is saying?
Do you see how the conclusion is derived?
Do you see how it differs from what you are saying?
quote: In this work the extra-continental morphological affinities of a Paleo-Indian skeleton well dated between 11,000 and 11,500 years B.P. (Lapa Vermelha IV Hominid 1, or "Luzia") is investigated, using as comparative samples Howells' (1989) world-wide modern series and Habgood's (1985) Old World Late Pleistocene fossil hominids.
In the first case, Lapa Vermelha IV Hominid 1 exhibited an undisputed morphological affinity firstly with Africans and secondly with South Pacific populations.
In the second comparison, the earliest known American skeleton had its closest similarities with early Australians, Zhoukoudian Upper Cave 103, and Taforalt 18.
The results obtained clearly confirm the idea that the Americas were first colonized by a generalized Homo sapiens population which inhabited East Asia in the Late Pleistocene[
Basically, saying that early Australians [like their descendants], east Asians and the Paleo-Americans were tropically adapted, btw the original phenotypic state of modern humans as they first appeared in Africa, with the comparative analysis indicating that Early Australians, Paleo-Americans and Paleo-Africans more closely resembled modern tropical Africans, and then, the modern South Pacific groups like the Austalo-Melanesians. Again, one reason to understand that, the morphological traits of the earliest Americans, cannot be used as unequivocal proof of immigrants directly from Africa.
Posted by Clyde Winters (Member # 10129) on :
supercar quote: _______________________________________________________________ -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- I am trying to get advocates of pre-columbian African migrations into the "New World" to see that, "possibility" isn't enough, especially where Africans are concerned; you need something solid! This, in my opinion, is what seems to be missing in the proposed evidences thus far mentioned in the discussions of direct African links with the "New World" prior to European invasions into the region. _______________________________________________________________
I don't believe you one bit. You read an physical anthropological study that proves Africans lived among the Olmecs yet you want to interpret it differently. An anthropological study that has not been contradicted by anyone in 33 years.
First you claim you could not accept the work because it compared ancient skulls to modern skulls. After I showed you that this method is regularly used by physical anthropologists you claim that this is not a direct link between Africans and the Olmec. This exercise allows us to look at the learning attributions of neo-Eurocentrists like yourself. Although most Eurocentrists are conservatives, the neo-Eurocentrists are mainly liberals.
supercar you began this thread in a neutral fashion claiming you were open to debating the issue of an African presence in ancient America. I provide a refereed article discussing African skeletons in America. Yet, without providing any counter anthropological evidence to disconfirm the findings of Wiercinski, you just dismiss the article because you don't believe whats in front of your face.
Neo-Eurocentrists can be defined as white and black liberal Eurocentrists who pretend they accept the ideas of racial equality through their adherence to the Out of Africa Theory 40,000 years ago, while doing everything in their power to explain away the anthropological, archaeological, linguistic, textual and historical evidence that clearly indicate that African people called: Kushites expanded across the world after 4000 BC and began civilizations in Europe, Asia and the Americas.
This exercise by supercar, to pretend neutrality while advancing the Eurocentric hegemony of history, allows us to perceive the neo-Eurocentrist (your) attitude toward Afrocentrism and the ability of African people to create and maintain civilization.
A learner's behavior is dependent on learned internal and external events and experiences. We feel secure when our knowledge base is confirmed.We feel impotent when our knowledge base is found lacking in validity and integrity.
Traditional history as taught in the public and private schools of America support white supremacy as noted by Carter G. Woodson. Afrocentric research supports the self-esteem of African people and firmly grounds the ancient history of African people.
Like must of us brought up in Western society you and other neo-Eurocentrists have been conditioned to see African people as inferior. To cover up your acceptance of white supremacy, you have become adapt at discussing mtDNA data because it allows you to accept the fact that all human beings are one, given the expansion of Africans 40,000 years ago, while denying the recent expansion of African people across the world after 4000BC.
All learning is dependednt on outcome expectations. It is these expectatancies that determine one's motivation to learn.
Supercar because your learning environment and experiences in schools (kg-16)has instilled in you an appreciation of the superiority of whites over blacks, and acceptance of the myth that Blacks only created civilizations in Africa, your outcome expectations is that all research will prove that Blacks have developed no civilizations outside Africa. As a result, you can not accept the evidence of African skeletons existing among the Olmecs because it would destroy your self-esteem and sense of well being to know that the Afrocentrists, your sworn enemy, actually have evidence that support a recent spread of African civilizations around the world after 4000 BC, because this would mean that all your learning regarding African people is a lie.
As result when you read the article by Wiercinski supportinng the presence of Africans among the Olmec it is not only disturbing, it also shows that your entire education about African people was a lie. Eventhough you refuse to accept his findings the truth will remain visible.
Where was your conciousness and reading comprehension when you read the Wiercinski article? You're inability to understand, and accept what you have read indicates that you're mental structures have been so throughly Eurocentricized that you can't handle the truth!
This self-imposed blindness will keep you far from the truth.
......
Posted by Hotep2u (Member # 9820) on :
Greetings;
Clyde Winters I have to say that you are going up against the BEAST and the LIARS will do everything possible to cover up the FACTS of the Afrikan presence you know this and I know this so debating with Eurocentrics is a waste of time in my opinion because they aren't debating from the same perspective that AFrikans are:
EUROCENTRICS are working to COVER UP the TRUTH AFROCENTRICS are working to UNCOVER the TRUTH
Two different areas and guess what When AFrocentrics uncover truth guess who will rush to LIE, DENY or BLAME THE OTHER GUY?
This issue is much more complex than most think, I personally learned about the Olmec issue from.
Zechariah Sitchin The case of the missing Elephant!
The ruins and remains of Mexico's pre-Columbian civilizations enchant, intrigue, fascinate and puzzle. Of them the oldest and earliest, that of people referred-to as Olmecs, is the most enigmatic -- for they challenge present-day scholars to explain how had people from Africa come and settled and thrived in this part of the New World, thousands of years before Columbus.
The Discovery
We know how they looked because they left behind countless sculptures, marvelously carved in stone, depicting them; some, in fact, are stone portraits of Olmec leaders; colossal in size, they immortalize in stone what, to many, has been an unpleasant enigma. The first colossal stone head was discovered in the Mexican state of Veracruz back in 1869. Its discoverer reported it in the Bulletin of the Mexican Geographical and Statistical Society as "a magnificent sculpture that most amazingly represents an Ethiopian." The report included a drawing clearly showing the stone head's Negroid features; and that doomed the discovery to oblivion...
The Re-Discovery
It was not until 1925 that the existence of the Olmecs was reaffirmed when an archaeological team from Tulane University found another such gigantic stone head in the adjoining Mexican state of Tabasco; it measured about eight feet in height and weighed some twenty four tons.
In time, many more such colossal sculptures have been found; they depict distinctly different individuals wearing helmets; they also clearly depict, in each case, a person with African features -- black Africans. As archaeological discovery followed archaeological discovery, it became evident that in a vast central area of Mexico stretching from the Gulf coast to the Pacific coast, these "Olmecs" built major urban centers, engaged in mining, were the first in Mesoamerica to have a calendar and hieroglyphic writing, and established what is by now recognized as Mesoamerica's Mother Civilization.
Unpleasant Problem
The problem that this posed was twofold: Not only the issue of Negroid Africans somehow crossing the Atlantic Ocean and settling in the New World before others; but also the incredible antiquity of such arrival. This problem was dealt with by first suggesting that the Olmecs appeared after more famed peoples such as the Mayas; then by grudgingly acknowledging earlier dates B.C. --250 B.C., then 500 B.C., then 1250 B.C., then even 1500 B.C.
Faced with such evidence, the solution was to deny that these were Africans ... Even now a noted scholar, writing in the official catalogue of the Museum of Anthropology of Jalapa, states in regard to the individuals depicted in the sculptures: "in spite of the general similarity of features -- flat noses with flaring nostrils and thickened lips (leading some to falsely claim an African origin for the Olmec)," etc.
So: "To falsely claim an African origin for the Olmecs"!
And this brings me to the Case of the Missing Elephant.
An Elephant Among the Wheels
Jalapa, a gem of a town, is about two hours' drive from Veracruz (where the Spanish Conquistador Hernan Cortes landed in 1519). Its museum is undoubtedly second only to the famed one in Mexico City; but unlike Mexico City's which displays artifacts from all over the country, the Jalapa one exhibits only locally discovered artifacts -- predominantly Olmec ones.
Dramatically and effectively displayed in an innovative setting, the Museum boasts several colossal stone heads as well as other stone sculptures. It also displays smaller objects found at Olmec sites; among them, in special display showcases, are what are considered to be Olmec "toys." They include animals mounted on wheels -- a visual and evidentiary negation of the common claim that the people of Mesoamerica (and America in general) were unfamiliar with the wheel.
And included in the same display case were elephants -- "toys" made of clay.
Gone - Where and Why?
I, and some of my fans who accompanied me, saw them on previous visits to the Museum.
BUT when I (and again some of my fans with me) was there recently -- in December 1999 -- the elephants were nowhere in sight!
I could find no one in authority to obtain an explanation from. But that the elephants were once there was a fact indeed, here is a photograph of one, shot on a previous visit:
Now, here is the significance of this small artifact: There are no, and never have been, elephants in the Americas. There are and have been elephants in Africa. And a depiction of an elephant could have been made only by someone who has seen an elephant, i.e. someone who has been to Africa! At this and other museums later visited in December 1999, guards have asserted that objects that I wished to point out and that were written up in my book The Lost Realms but somehow vanished, were loaned for an overseas exhibit.
Perhaps. But that such a hard-to-explain depiction of an elephant would be selected to highlight Mexico's ancient heritage, is either unlikely or highly significant.
I suppose one will have to revisit Jalapa and find out whether the little elephant is back among the "toys."
ZECHARIA SITCHIN
THE CANARY CURRENTS are undeniable yet Eurocentrics try to ignore that fact also.
Clyde Winters do you think Eurocentrics would cover up the Afrikan presence in Kemet and not cover up the Afrikan presence in South America?
Debating with Eurocentrics is a waste of time, just write books and put your ideas together because your closer to the truth in my opinion than most Authors that I have read.
Hotep
Posted by rasol (Member # 4592) on :
quote:There are no, and never have been, elephants in the Americas.
It is believed that the early Indians spear-hunted the mastodons as they later did the easy-to-kill bison. Many recovered mastodon fossils bear evidence that man-made tools were the cause of death and butchery after death is evidenced by tool marks on the bones. http://www.scsc.k12.ar.us/2000backeast/ENatHist/Members/SchullerL/Default.htm
Dr. Winters: I take it you have no answer to my questions?
If so, I won't repeat them, I'll just move on.
Posted by Hotep2u (Member # 9820) on :
Greetings:
Psychology lesson 1.
YOU CANNOT DRAW OR SHAPE SOMETHING THAT YOU HAVE NEVER SEEN BEFORE!
rasol wrote:
quote: It is believed that the early Indians spear-hunted the mastodons as they later did the easy-to-kill bison. Many recovered mastodon fossils bear evidence that man-made tools were the cause of death and butchery after death is evidenced by tool marks on the bones.
I choose not to believe this idea because it's illogical, plus it's a LIE because I saw a program on 60 Minutes where they stated the FUR or HIDE of the Mastodon would be TOO HEAVY for the humans to manuever that's right go look it up.
Asking me to accept Mastadon hunting traditions being passed down to descendants and the descendants go on to make a sculptre of something they never saw before is really asking me to give up logical thinking.
Afrikans knew of Elephants and Afrikans went to South America via the easily accessed CANARY Currents and brought the image or sculptre with them is much more logical.
Next this idea of Australians coming to south America before West Afrikans is really asking me to throw caution to wind.
Hotep
Posted by rasol (Member # 4592) on :
quote:Originally posted by Hotep2u: Greetings:
YOU CANNOT DRAW OR SHAPE SOMETHING THAT YOU HAVE NEVER SEEN BEFORE!
That's a non-sequitur, because it does not address the following erroneous citation:
quote:There are no, and never have been, elephants in the Americas.
The Mastodon is the Native American elephant, and Mexicans and other early Americans did hunt them, so....the statement, you quoted is essentially false. Simple as that.
To argue from ideology without education is equivalent to barking without being able to bite.
Posted by rasol (Member # 4592) on :
quote: It is believed that the early Indians spear-hunted the mastodons as they later did the easy-to-kill bison. Many recovered mastodon fossils bear evidence that man-made tools were the cause of death and butchery after death is evidenced by tool marks on the bones.
quote:I choose not to believe this idea because it's illogical, plus it's a LIE because I saw a program on 60 Minutes where they stated the FUR or HIDE of the Mastodon would be TOO HEAVY for the humans to manuever that's right go look it up.
You're confusing the wooly mammoth with the Mastodon.
Choose to believe in accordance with your ideology.
I can only provide you with facts.
If you want to know more about Mastodon's in tropical America, and the humans who hunted them, just ask. Posted by Supercar (Member # 6477) on :
quote:Originally posted by Clyde Winters:
I don't believe you one bit. You read an physical anthropological study that proves Africans lived among the Olmecs yet you want to interpret it differently.
I've already spelt out what I felt was wrong with the study you provided. You have yet to address those points.
quote:Clyde Winters: An anthropological study that has not been contradicted by anyone in 33 years.
Matter of fact, a study has been re-cited by yourself here, that ought to tell you what is wrong with your position, and reveal the shortcomings of the material in your earlier link.
quote:Clyde Winters:
First you claim you could not accept the work because it compared ancient skulls to modern skulls. After I showed you that this method is regularly used by physical anthropologists...
I would appreciate it, if you 'cite' my words, rather than interpreting [more like mis-interpreting or mutilating] them.
quote:Clyde Winters: ...you claim that this is not a direct link between Africans and the Olmec.
Again, this is what YOU claim. You have yet to correctly cite me!
My position was and remains that, you cannot lump humans around the globe into racial typologies, 3 in this case, and expect logical conclusions. Moreover, since South Pacific populations bear close resemblance to early Americans, you cannot simply use these morphological traits as unequivocal evidence of African presence among the early American groups, especially in light of genetic evidence.
quote:Clyde Winters:
This exercise allows us to look at the learning attributions of neo-Eurocentrists like yourself. Although most Eurocentrists are conservatives, the neo-Eurocentrists are mainly liberals.
These labeling antics are futile distractions, meant to obscure the fact that you don't have answers to questions posed to you; those unanswered questions aren't forgotten.
quote:Clyde Winters:
supercar you began this thread in a neutral fashion claiming you were open to debating the issue of an African presence in ancient America.
It is precisely this neutral fashion that allows me to expose the holes in your argument. Without the critical eye to all evidence presented, I cannot consider myself truth-centric; the only centrism acceptable to me.
quote:Clyde Winters: I provide a refereed article discussing African skeletons in America. Yet, without providing any counter anthropological evidence to disconfirm the findings of Wiercinski, you just dismiss the article because you don't believe whats in front of your face.
I suggest you take another look at the posts of this thread, and carefully read what I had said earlier. See, if you can actually address it, rather than mis-read it, as a casual dismissal of your article.
quote:Clyde Winters: Neo-Eurocentrists can be defined as white and black liberal Eurocentrists who pretend they accept the ideas of racial equality through their adherence to the Out of Africa Theory 40,000 years ago, while doing everything in their power to explain away the anthropological, archaeological, linguistic, textual and historical evidence that clearly indicate that African people called: Kushites expanded across the world after 4000 BC and began civilizations in Europe, Asia and the Americas.
If your position is as strong as you make it out to be, why are you having such a hard time supporting it. Counter evidence to your claims have been devastating to your claims, which explains why your claims continue to raise more questions than provide answers.
quote:Clyde Winters:
This exercise by supercar, to pretend neutrality while advancing the Eurocentric hegemony of history, allows us to perceive the neo-Eurocentrist (your) attitude toward Afrocentrism and the ability of African people to create and maintain civilization.
I look down on both Eurocentric and Afrocentric distorters of reality, thank you very much.
quote:Clyde Winters:
We feel impotent when our knowledge base is found lacking in validity and integrity.
...which is clearly what you are doing here.
quote:Clyde Winters: Where was your conciousness and reading comprehension when you read the Wiercinski article?
I was about to ask the same of you, concerning my feedback and the questions asked of you.
quote:Clyde Winters: This self-imposed blindness will keep you far from the truth...
By the end of this discussion, we will find out the one who is actually suffering from self-imposed blindness.
Speaking of which, we are getting close to that time, as indicated by...
quote:rasol: Dr. Winters: I take it you have no answer to my questions?
Clyde Winters do you think Eurocentrics would cover up the Afrikan presence in Kemet and not cover up the Afrikan presence in South America?
Debating with Eurocentrics is a waste of time, just write books and put your ideas together because your closer to the truth in my opinion than most Authors that I have read. _______________________________________________________________ You are absolutely right the Neo-Eurocentrists will disguise the truth. You must remember that the Eurocentrists on this forum are neo-Eurocentrists, they are mainly Afro-American and white liberals.
They love the Out of Africa Theory for the expansion of Africans around 40,000 BC, because they believe this genetic reality will help bring about social equality, and those solve the problems of African, by promoting that the mtDNA "proves" that all people are created equal.
The Neo-Eurocentrists have been brain washed by white supremacy, and feel that since they learned the ideas they hold in school--from liberal teachers and professors, the myths they have been taught must be facts. This notion of social equality is fine as philosophical issue. But in regards to the existence of Afro-Americans, and Africans/Blacks generally will not resolve the issue of white supremacy, lying about the history of African people and discrimination, because of the "politics of the other". The the 'politics of the other'or politics of difference, put simply implies that for white unity to exist in the United States, there must be a frontier to be conquered and a subjugated minority to dominate. The United States is the only place where white ethnics get along. If not for Afro-Americans, whites would be at each others throats, like the British-Irish for hundreds of years, French-Germans (WWI and WWII)and the recent Boasnian (Christian-Muslim) conflict. Andrew Hacker, in Two Nations: Black and white, separate, hostile, unequal that Americans use their "whiteness" to remain in power.
Afrocentrists seeks to destroy the bonds of white supremacy, as manifested by liberals and conservatives alike. DuBois early recognized that white liberals fear Black unity and racial pride because "No sooner do whites see this unwanted development [Afrocentrism, Afro-American racial pride] than they point out in dismay the inevitable consequencies: "You lose our tutelege", 'You need our wealth and technique'. They point out how fine is the role of [Europeans/white] elder brother" ( Daniel Walden (Ed.), W.E.B. DuBois: The Crisis Writings, 1972:pg.263).
This reality led Chancelor Williams in the Destruction of Black Civilization to write "The outcome and,indeed the whole future of the race depends upon the extent to which we have become intellectually emancipated and decaucasized enough to pioneer in original thinking".
Given this reality an Afrocentrists can not allow neo-Eurocentrists or Eurocentrists generally to spread lies about the African past on any forum. It is our job , if , one feels like doing so to illustrate to the world that the foundation of their knowledge is lies.
Also I have already written a book on the African Olmecs. It is called Atlantis in Mexico. It can be ordered at http://lulu.com
LMAO To claim Rasol, Supercar, or Djehuti, who has been absent to be Eurocentric because they don't agree with you, is clear evidence of your delusion.
I may not agree with Rasol on most things but i at least respect his honesty. He has been a staunch defender of African accomplishments like that of Egypt. If anything he is what Afrocentrics should be, focused on African accomplishments, not trying to claim the whole world is made in African cultures' images.
I may not stand Rasshole attimes, but I at least he has more intellectual honesty than you do.
Posted by rasol (Member # 4592) on :
quote:Clyde Winters: You are absolutely right the Neo-Eurocentrists will disguise the truth. You must remember that the Eurocentrists on this forum are neo-Eurocentrists, they are mainly Afro-American and white liberals.
I ask you to address a recent anthropology study on paleo-americans.
You fail to do so, and instead engage in unwarranted [and silly] personal attacks?
Is your behavior a sign of frustration?
For shame, Dr. Winters.
Posted by rasol (Member # 4592) on :
Back on topic and in and attempt to raise the level of this conversation:
More than 10,000 years ago early inhabitants of the Americas, known as Paleo-Indians, hunted large mammals such as bison, mammoth, and mastodon. The hunting of such large prey was a late development in human prehistory, as it required sophisticated stone weaponry and a kind of planning and coordination possible only with an elaborate system of communication, such as language. This diorama from the National Museum of Anthropology in Mexico City depicts Mesoamerican Paleo-Indians killing a mastodon.
Anyone who has seen varieties of Tapir would know that that pottery could be of one. And looking at that shape it could just as well be a mouse.
Elephants Posted by rasol (Member # 4592) on :
quote:SuperCar writes: My position was and remains that, you cannot lump humans around the globe into racial typologies, 3 in this case, and expect logical conclusions. Moreover, since South Pacific populations bear close resemblance to early Americans, you cannot simply use these morphological traits as unequivocal evidence of African presence among the early American groups, especially in light of genetic evidence.
Correct, more and more bioanthropologists have come to the above concensus.
However, some resist it, because it confounds the way they learned [from European racialists ultimately] to view the world.
Science is a process of neverending intellectual evolution - in which the mind has to adapt in order to survive.
Posted by Clyde Winters (Member # 10129) on :
I would appreciate it, if you 'cite' my words, rather than interpreting [more like mis-interpreting or mutilating] them.
supercar quote:
So, comparing populations separated by great/extreme geographical distance and a great deal of time depth [when compared to other designated populations], will inevitably result in inaccurate/questionable conclusions, as it leads to disregard for the aforementioned factors. Here, Mexican crania from the pre-classic and classic period are compared to very geographically distant populations, which needless to say, may well have significant time of divergences [used here, in the context of separation of populations] from a common ancestral population(s), not to mention that the specimens selected for comparison with the Mexican series, come from single regions in two continents [one in Africa, one in East Asia, and one in the European subcontinent], namely Uganda, Mongolia and Poland. ________________________________________________________________________
This is hypocrisy you can accept the comparison of ancient and modern skeletons by Walter A. Neves1, Joseph F. Powell2, Andre Prous3, MORPHOLOGICAL AFFINITIES OF THE EARLIEST KNOWN AMERICAN Genet. Mol. Biol. vol.22 n.4 São Paulo Dec. 1999 , yet you refuse to accept the findings of Wiercinski who used the same method. He was testing the theory, were Europeans and Africans found among the Olmec. He proved Africans were among the Olmecs by comparing European and African samples.
Just because Wiercinski did not compare the groups you wish he would have compared does nothing to disconfirm his evidence. He proved the presence of Africans among the Olmecs. Your ability to accept only what you want to believe, due to preconcieved notions of ancient American archaeology, shows you are not a neutral researcher, you are a hypocrite stuck in an Eurocentric paradigm that promotes white supremacy and the neo-Eurocentric ideas of a golden age 40,000 ybp; and the status quo since then. This view has no validity.
[/B]
Posted by SidiRom (Member # 10364) on :
Again you show your ignorance. Neves compares actual skulls from multiple populations. Wiercinski attempts to use stereotyped parameters of 3 archetypal racial groups. That in itself is a huge difference in methodology.
Posted by Clyde Winters (Member # 10129) on :
rasol quote: __________________________________________________________________ Back on topic and in and attempt to raise the level of this conversation:
More than 10,000 years ago early inhabitants of the Americas, known as Paleo-Indians, hunted large mammals such as bison, mammoth, and mastodon. ___________________________________________________________
The topic of this particular section of this thread are skeletons dating back to 1200-600 BC of Olmec people. We were not discussing Mexico 10,000 years ago.
.................
Posted by Supercar (Member # 6477) on :
quote:Originally posted by rasol:
However, some resist it, because it confounds the way they learned [from European racialists ultimately] to view the world.
Indeed, speaking of contradictions, it is interesting how Winters relies on these [scientifically outmoded] European constructed typologies, and goes onto call others who reject these, as the Eurocentric-minded folks.
Posted by SidiRom (Member # 10364) on :
Ain't that a hoot though. This is the same Wiercinski that claimed 75% of Egyptians were Caucasian.
Posted by Clyde Winters (Member # 10129) on :
sidirom quote ___________________________________________________________________ Again you show your ignorance. Neves compares actual skulls from multiple populations. Wiercinski attempts to use stereotyped parameters of 3 archetypal racial groups. That in itself is a huge difference in methodology. _______________________________________________________________
You don't know what you're talking about. They did not use actual skulls they outline in the abstract to their paper that they used material collected by Howell and Habgood.
"In none of these analyses the first Americans show any resemblance to either northeast Asians or modern native Americans. So far, these studies have included affirmed and putative early skeletons thought to date between 8,000 and 10,000 years B.P. In this work the extra-continental morphological affinities of a Paleo-Indian skeleton well dated between 11,000 and 11,500 years B.P. (Lapa Vermelha IV Hominid 1, or "Luzia") is investigated, using as comparative samples Howells' (1989) world-wide modern series and Habgood's (1985) Old World Late Pleistocene fossil hominids . The comparison between Lapa Vermelha IV Hominid 1 and Howells' series was based on canonical variate analysis, including 45 size-corrected craniometric variables, while the comparison with fossil hominids was based on principal component analysis, including 16 size-corrected variables. In the first case, Lapa Vermelha IV Hominid 1 exhibited an undisputed morphological affinity firstly with Africans and secondly with South Pacific populations."
Olmec skeletons African? No, just poor scholarship This is a collection of back and forth arguments from sci.archaeology.mesoamerican, compiled by Peter van Rossum, which deconstructs the study of Wiercinski who claims to have found African skeletons.
In response to my post Mr. Winters congratulated me on having performed a fine critique but even though he didn't contradict my conclusions he said he still wasn't willing to dismiss Wiercinski's study.
The final part is one of my last posts to Mr. Winters to try to convince him that no matter what his position with regard to Old-New World contacts, Wiercinski's study is not useful - I guess he never got the message.
Feel free to e-mail me with anything in here that seems ambiguous to you, I'll try to make them clearer.
Peter van Rossum PMV100@PSU.EDU ************************************************************* 1. NOTES ON WIERCINSKI'S ARTICLES
Data set The skeletons used by Wiercinski came from INAH collections and from the Maya Museum in Merida. The data used are summarized in the table below:
+-------------------+-------+--------------+ | Site(s) | Number| Time Period | +-------------------+ ------+--------------+ | Zacatenco & | 6 | Early | | El Arborillo | | Preclassic | +-------------------+-------+--------------+ | Tlatilco | 76 | Preclassic | | | | | +-------------------+-------+--------------+ | Cerro de las Mesas| 19 | Late | | | | Classic | +-------------------+-------+--------------+ | Monte Alban & | 41 | Classic & | | Monte Negro | | Postclassic | +-------------------+-------+--------------+ | Teotihuacan | 13 | Classic | | | | | +-------------------+-------+--------------+ | Maya | 38 | Classic & | | various Maya sites| | Postclassic | +-------------------+-------+--------------+
Wiercinski characterizes the Tlatilco and Cerro de las Mesas samples as "Olmecoid" but its clear that he is using them as being genetically linked to Olmec populations at sites such as La Venta.
Methodology Wiercinski measured the skulls for 48 traits, but focuses in on the following 10 traits: 1. Prominence of maxilla - degree of prognathis 2. Height of nasal root 3. Prominence of nose 4. Prominence of nasal spine 5. Position of nasal spine 6. Profile of nasa 7. Frontal shape of nasal bones 8. Shape of orbits 9. Depth of maxillary incisure 10. Depth of canine fossa Wiercinski is most interested in the above 10 traits because he maintains that they are the best for discriminating between what he calls the 3 great races of man (white, black & yellow).
Based on the above 10 traits he also calculates two distance measures which he calls Py-w and Py-b, where each of these characterizes how a skull compares between yellow-white and yellow-black races. For example a score of Py-w=0 means a skull is completely white; whereas Py-w=100 means a skull is completely yellow. Similarly, Py-b=0 is same as black and Py-b=100 is yellow.
Note: Wiercinski was not able to measure all of the traits for each of the skulls. This is due to post-depositional processes which have had a destructive impact on many of the skeletons.
Results The first thing Wiercinski did was to compare the Py-w and Py-b scores of the 6 Mesoamerican cranial series with measures for series from Poland (white), Mongolia (yellow) and Uganda (black). From this he produced two graphs (figs. 2&3) from Wiercinski 1970. I have summarized these frequency graphs in a rough tabular form below. For simplicity I only include what Wiercinski calls the "Olmecoid" series from Tlatilco and Cerro de las Mesas.
In fig. 3 he compares the Mesoamerican series Pb-y scores with series from Uganda (black race) and Mongolia (yellow race) [the results for the Ugandan, "Olmecoid", Mongolian series are reproduced in rough tabular form below]. Similarly, in fig. 2, he compares the Py-w scores of the Mesoamerican series with series from Mongolia (yellow race) and Poland (white race).
In both figs. 2&3 the Mesoamerican series fall in an intermediate position, but overlap at the extremes with the Mongolian, Polish and Ugandan series. It should also be noted that there is also overlap between his Ugandan (black), Mongolian (yellow) and Polish (white) pops.
For Wiercinski this indicates that those Mesoamerican individuals who overlapped with the Ugandan series were black (African), those that overlap with the Mongolian series were yellow (Asian), and those that overlap with the Polish were white (European).
To me, this only serves to point out what other racial studies have found - racial identification of an individual is problematic at best because there is more variability within members of the same race than there is between members of different races [see any introductory anthro. text or book on race for examples].
Finally Wiercinski classifies the skulls into various racial types based on what he calls the procedure of "the Comparative-Morphological Trend of the Polish Anthropological School." Don't ask me what that means, he doesn't describe it in this article but says it is described in an article published in the 38th Congress of Americanists held in Stuttgart in 1968. I couldn't find this article but here's what he reports:
******************************************************************** 2. MY POSTED CRITIQUE OF WIERCINSKI'S STUDY
In article <4rmm25$rk1@artemis.it.luc.edu> cwinter@orion.it.luc.edu (Clyde A. Winters) writes:
>Cameron Wesson (c-wesson@students.uiuc.edu) wrote: > >: 1. The claim is made that Tlatilco and Monte Alban are Olmec sites. > >: This is untrue. This fact alone would lead me to believe that the person >: [deletions] > > This is highly misleading granted these sites may have been occupied >in preClassic times but there is a clear Olmec period at Tlatilco and >Monte Alban as discussed by Bernal in , and Coe in Jill >Guthrie .
As has been pointed out to you by other posters, there is currently a debate as to what the best definition of Olmec is. Many archaeologists now think there is an "Olmec style" found throughout most of Mesoamerica which is an amalgamation of traits from different regions. These archaeologists reserve the term Olmec to refer to a cultural group living in the Gulf Coast of Mexico during the time period 1500-500 B.C. Bernal's reference is now woefully dated and more recent work in the Valley of Oaxaca shows that certain "Olmec" traits actually appear here earlier than they do in the Olmec Gulf Coast heartland. This is true for other regions of Mesoamerica as well. While Coe might still be sticking to the notion of the diffusion of an Olmec style from a single source, many others have abandoned this notion in favor of one that sees the origin of traits in various areas and its diffusion associated with cultural contacts by multiple societies at a roughly equivalent stage of cultural evolution.
>: 2. Cranial measurements from Tlatilco indicate an African presence. > >: Wrong again. I presented a paper on the burials of Tlatilco at >: the Midwest Mesoamerican meetings in 1993, _Patterns of Association in >: the Burials of San Luis Tlatilco, Mexico_, and I can tell you that many of >: the remains were NOT in the best condition. They were also negatively >: impacted due to the fact that the site was initially discovered by heavy >: excavation by a brick company, rather than through archaeological >: investigation (although subsequent salvage excavations were undertaken). >: Such impacts often destroy fragile human remains, and this was often >: been the case at Tlatilco. Cranial measures are *AT BEST* correct about >: 85% of the time, and that is when ALL of the cranium is available to be >: measured, and the measurements are made by an expert. Remove one or two >: key cranial features and the confidence interval of racial >: classification drops to 70%. Remove three or more cranial features from >: your measurements and you are about as accurate as simply guessing! >: Since the Tlatilco assemblage was not in great shape to begin with, >: there is a *strong* possibility that the initial racial categorization is >: dubious. STRIKE ONE! > >These statements contradict themselves. How can you claim that there are >many Tlatilco skeletal remains that you have not examined that are spread >throughout Mexico, and say that the findings of Wiercinski are incorrect. >You have not examined all the skeletons so you only "know" what YOU found.
Whether Mr. Wasson was able to examine all of the same Tlatilco skulls or not I can't answer, however, Wiercinski himself only worked with a very fragmentary data set. Wiercinski was only able to analyze 76 of the approx. 500 burials from Tlatilco. As Mr. Wasson points out, many of the skulls are not in the best of shape and therefore, Wiercinski was not able to get readings on all his attributes from many of the skulls (Wiercinski 1970).
While you (and Wiercinski) seem to constantly stress the fact that he identified some 13+% of the skulls as being "black" and therefore suggestive of African contacts; you fail to mention some of the other features of his study.
1. Not only did Wiercinski identify "black" skulls he was able to identify the members of no less than 12 different races among the 52 Tlatilco skulls he identified and 15 races among the 36 Monte Alban/Monte Negro skulls he identified (Wiercinski 1970:247)
2. On page 238 Wiercinski mentions that racial types are not necessarily equivalent to populational descent. This means that just because his classification identifies a skull as "black" it doesn't necessarily the person is from Africa. Many studies have demonstrated that there is more variability between members of the same race than there is between members of different races (for example see Lewontin 1972). For example, there are many people who the U.S. gov. classifies as black who nonetheless have many "white" physical characteristics. Similarly, if you look at Wiercinski's fig. 3 you can see that there are some members of his Mongolian (yellow race) sample who have a racial index that is more black than almost half of his Ugandan (black race) sample and vice versa. Racial classification schemes have been shown to be more social than biological constructs (see Shanklin 1994) yet Wiercinski goes on to use it as a good indicator of physical contact.
3. All the "races" he compares the Mesoamerican series to are present day Old World populations. This ignores the possibility that new "racial" types have developed in the New World after colonization. If this is true then its like devising a classification scheme based on 10 breeds of dogs and then taking the skeletons of a new breed and classifying them using the existing scheme. By necessity you will classify them with pre-existing breeds even if they have their own unique set of identifying traits. Interestingly on p. 236-237 Wiercinski does a quick comparison between the Tlatilco series and a native "Hybrid Nahuan type" living in present day Jalapa and Vera Cruz. Surprise, surprise, he says they are "indistinguishable." He claims this is the result of convergent evolution rather than the simpler explanation that they are a genetic continuation.
4. In another article, Wiercinski talked about how his study demonstrated a social & genetic contribution from Shang Chinese and Mediterranean whites as well as blacks (Wiercinski 1969). If this conclusion is correct (and I don't believe it is) why should anyone believe that it was the Africans, not the whites or Chinese, that brought about major cultural shifts. Seems like Wiercinski's study can be used by just about anyone to support any conclusion, except of course the sensible one that new World pops. were able to develop their own culture without outside help.
5. Among the racial groups that Wiercinski identified are a group of "blacks" of the Dongolian race and a group of "whites" of the Armemoid race (Wiercinski 1970:247). Another study of the 78 Tlatilco skulls was able to identify 2 types, one which they classified as typical and the other as different (Vargas G. 1974). When he compared his groups to Wiercinski's he said that Wiercinski's examples of the Dongolan and the Armenoid (remember these are black and white) both belonged to his normal group. Further he says that Wiercinski's finding of 12 races in the Tlatilco series and its implications for the racial makeup of the population is hard to support (Vargas G. 1974:319). So it looks like Wiercinski's findings were not supported by an independent researcher who appears to have worked with the same data set as Wiercinski.
Criticizing Wasson's study as inadequate while praising Wiercinski's own fragmentary data set using questionable assumptions about the nature of human races and typology is ridiculous.
>Moreover you claim that Cyphers excavated the first Olmec skeletons in >1993. This is wrong, Drucker found Olmec skeletons at Veracruz in 1943. >Please refer to M. Pailles "Pampa el Pajon an early Estuarine site >Chiapas Mexico", , >no.44 (1980). Your comments about the lack of skeletons from Olmec sites >prove YOUR significant reading of the literature on the Olmecs
Other posts by myself as well as Mr. Baker demonstrate to you that the Drucker skulls and other skeletons referred to in Pailles are *not* Olmec. You shouldn't be so quick to slight someone else's research when your own is so clearly false on a given topic.
>: 3. Linguistic evidence supports African contacts with the Olmec. > >: Several people have written to the group about the "translation" of Olmec >: celts and their supposed "Mande" connection. Such assertions are similar >: to the translation of Ogum, Pheonecian, and Ruinic writing systems >: throughout the Americas. They are the efforts of an over-productive >: imagination in an attempt to support someone's strongly held ideas (i.e. >: Madjegorie, Book of Mormon). Unfortunately, no one other than the >: original researcher is able to "read" these celts, and the method and >: evidence haven't been shared with other scholars. Science doesn't work >: this way. We don't accept YOUR word that a study indicates "so-and-so", >: when your method and results cannot be replicated without your presence, >: and your evidence is not shared completely with the community of >: scholars. STRIKE ONE! > >I have shared my readings of the Olmec celts to scholars, they have been >ignored. This is to the loss of these scholars who to this day can not >read the entire Mayan script . > >(But I can read every Olmec inscription I >have ever attempted to read. And if you will refer to J. Guthrie's : Cameron Wesson. > >C.A. Winters
Lewontin, R.C. 1972 "The Apportionment of Human Diversity" in Evolutionary Biology vol. 6, T. Dobzhansky et al. eds. New York: Plenum. Pp. 381-398.
Shanklin, Eugenia 1994 Anthropology and Race. Belmont: Wadsworth.
Vargas G., Luis Alberto 1974 "Caracteres Craneanos Discontinuos en la Poblacion de Tlatilco, Mexico" Anales de Antropologia vol. 11, pp. 307-328.
Wiercinski, Andrzcj 1969 "Afinidades Raciales de Algunas Poblaciones Antiguas de Mexico." Anales de INAH, 7a epoca, tomo II, pp. 123-143. 1970 "Inter and Intrapopulational Racial Differentiation of Tlatilco, Cerro de las Mesas, Teotihuacan, Monte Alban and Yucatan Maya." Proceedings of the 39th International Congress of Americanists.
*********************************************************************** 3. MY FINAL ATTEMPT AT REASONING WITH MR. WINTERS
Mr. Winter writes: >Doug Weller (dweller@ramtops.demon.co.uk) wrote: >: But you haven't done that. Perhaps you haven't seen the posts >: rebutting your argument. I certainly haven't seen any replies from >: you to them. > >: Doug Weller Moderator, sci.archaeology.moderated > >I have read the post, they have not rebutted my arguments. Both Nancy >McNelly and Peter van Rossum, acknowledge their disagreement with the >findings of Wiercinski, yet they show that he is a well respected scientist >and provide more references to his work. We can all disagree over a matter >and never really change our views.
Mr. Winter,
You seem to have missed the full import of the posts which have been written so I will make one last attempt to explain them to you. You say you're a seeker of the truth, so I bring you these ten truths:
1. I was the only one (yourself included) who actually made an attempt to ascertain the credentials of Wiercinski. I found that he has published other material in peer-reviewed physical anthropological journals. Based on this I concluded that he shouldn't be dismissed out of hand as a crank since at least some of his research has scientific merit. Whether or not he is "well-respected" by his peers I cannot say.
2. At present there is *no* evidence of the use of metal by *any* Preclassic culture in Mesoamerica. This tends to argue against the idea of significant contacts between Mesoamerican Preclassic cultures and any culture which had developed metallurgy by this time.
3. The burials cited by yourself in Pailles' 1980 publication are *not* Olmec burials. Your assertion that Dr. Diehl lied is incorrect.
4. Many Mesoamerican archaeologists today believe the Olmec style and the Olmec people who lived in the Gulf Coast of Mexico 1500-500 B.C. are *not* equivalent. Therefore just because "Olmec style" objects are found at a site, it is not conclusive evidence of direct contact with the people living in the Gulf Coast region. Therefore, it is controversial to conclude that Tlatilco is an Olmec site. Here it becomes a matter of definition as to what the term Olmec means - see Grove's and Diehl's papers in "Regional Perspectives on the Olmec"
5. As stated by Mr. Baker, Monte Alban is *not* an Olmec site. Bernal's book is excellent but now somewhat dated. On this matter, further research showed him to be incorrect. Joyce Marcus and Kent Flannery's 1996 book "Zapotec Civilization" is an excellent summary of current archaeological knowledge on the Prehispanic Valley of Oaxaca.
6. The term race as applied to humans has *no* genetic/biological basis. To better understand this, do yourself a favor and pick up any recent Intro to Anthropology text to read the section on race - its very interesting.
7. Because of point 6, it is *never* possible to use cranial measurements, skeletal measurements, hair samples, blood samples, the "look" of colossal heads, etc., to "prove for certain" that African peoples traveled to the New World. True scientists use many lines of evidence to decide which of competing arguments is best supported by the data - they *never* prove anything for certain.
8. In our posts, Ms. McNelly and I did not "acknowledge" our disagreement with Wiercinski. Based on points 6 & 7, we *demonstrated* that his study is methodologically and theoretically flawed. This directly rebuts your use of it as evidence supporting your position.
9. The flaws in Wiercinski's research are so profound that it *cannot* be used to support the conclusion that there were skeletons of recent African descent in the burials of Tlatilco, Oaxaca or Cerro de las Mesas.
10. Mesoamerican archaeologists are *not* using their position to "maintain the status quo" or "hide the truth". The reason virtually all of them reject the idea of significant Old World-New World contacts is because they don't see any evidence for it.
> All I have tried to due in this matter is present evidence from the >finding of scholars relative to skeletons in ancient America. I believe I >accomplished this goal and in the process we all had a good discussion. I >have learned much from this posting and I hope other readers have had >similar results.
I hope you demonstrate what you've learned by acknowledging the truth of the points listed above (or explain why they are wrong). If you wish to continue studying the Olmec, more power to you. But please keep an open mind to the idea that Native American populations independently produced complex civilizations by their own efforts - just as African peoples produced wonders by theirs.
If you truly are a truth seeker, you will abandon the statement that Wiercinski's research "proves there were Africans in Olmec sites." Please pass this info on to any other Afrocentrists you know.
I would also suggest that in the future when you read a secondary account of an article which claims to "prove" anything, you go back to the original source and read it with a critical eye - even if it supports your position.
>A discussion on the internet is not a war. It is an >exchange of information. We will disagree, get over excited, and look >silly at times. But we must all remember that knowledge can only advance >if we all attempt to be civil in all matters. Take Care.
On this point we are in total agreement. I think that everyone in this group has behaved in a very civil manner. At the very least we've all learned who Wiercinski is and why his study is flawed.
>Cheers >C. A. Winters
Best of luck, Peter van Rossum PMV100@PSU.EDU
Posted by rasol (Member # 4592) on :
quote:This is hypocrisy you can accept the comparison of ancient and modern skeletons by Walter A. Neves1, Joseph F. Powell2, Andre Prous3, MORPHOLOGICAL AFFINITIES OF THE EARLIEST KNOWN AMERICAN Genet. Mol. Biol. vol.22 n.4 São Paulo Dec. 1999 , yet you refuse to accept the findings of Wiercinski who used the same method.
No he didn't, unless by method you simply mean skeletal comparison.
quote: He was testing the theory, were Europeans and Africans found among the Olmec.
And this is where his premise was flawed, as Olmec are neither European nor African.
quote: He proved Africans were among the Olmecs by comparing European and African samples.
No, he merely proved that a poorly constructed study based on a flawed premise will likely yield a fallacious conclusion.
quote: Just because Wiercinski did not compare the groups you wish he would have compared does nothing to disconfirm his evidence.
Yes it does, and I will give a real world example of exactly why, which, as with the study cited earlier, you will also likely fail to address, and rejoinder with insults out of frustration instead....
quote:The fact that the Nubian crania were overwhelmingly misclassified and that only eight were grouped with Late Period Dynastic Egypt may have a variety of explanations.
Since there is no Meroitic Nubian sample in the program’s data sets, there may have been no specific reference sample to compare with these ancient crania.
However, Howells’s populations were selected to sample the cranial variation found on the continents. If the Late Period Dynastic Egyptian crania differed greatly from the Nubian ones—and our tests suggest that they do not— then the Nubian crania might have been classified with other geographically close populations such as the Teita or the Dogon.
Alternatively, we might suspect all of the typicality probabilities to be significantly different from the populations ascribed by the program.
Instead, Fordisc 2.0 classified the Nubian crania with populations over an enormous geographic range, including North and Central Europe, Easter Island, the Andaman Islands, Japan, Taiwan, South Africa, Australia, and North America.
The control population sets within Fordisc 2.0 lack the distinctive morphology necessary to make this forensic application a useful tool for classifying an unknown cranium because the populations used are defined not on the basis of biology but on the basis of the variation in skeletal series or on self-assignment to folk categories that have strong sociohistorical (e.g., black, white), national (Chinese, Japanese), and linguistic (Hispanic) components.
Our results suggest that the attempt to classify populations into natural geographic groups or races—as if all of these groupings were biologically equivalent—will continue to fail
I ask again, do you understand the critique of improper methodology in skeletal anthropology, by the scholars cited above?
Posted by SidiRom (Member # 10364) on :
Wiercinski¹s basic methodolog is fundamentally flawed and grossly outdated. It was out dated years before he used it in the 1970¹s 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. ³The Racial Analysis of Human Populations in Relation to Their Ethnogenesis,² Current Anthropology 3(#1): 2-46. Together with article by Tadeusz Bielicki. ³Some Possibilities for Estimating Inter Population Relationship on the Basis of Continuous Traits²
*Current Anthropology* sends articles to a number of authorities internationally for review and publishes their comments. None of the commenters supported Wiercinski¹s 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 world¹s physical anthropologists.
Massaging the data will not alter its quality. The saying in the computer business is GIGO (garbage in; garbage out)
Bernard Ortiz de Montellano
Posted by SidiRom (Member # 10364) on :
Tlatilco is not strictly an Olmec site. As I said before 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. You just have not read Wiercinski carefully.
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 ³big² races. He further subdivided the skulls into racial types. He found that the 52 skulls at Tlatilco belonged to 12 different ³races.² Of the 52 skulls 13.5% were ³negroid,² 19.8% were ³caucasian,² and 38.5% were ³asiatic.² Very importantly Wiercinski (1971: 138; 1972: 238) states that these ³racial designations² are purely morphological types and not genetic classifications, that means that just because a skull is ³black² 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. Van Sertima misquotes Vargas (1974). Nowhere does Vargas use the words ³negroid² or ³caucasoid,² nor does he compare the Tlatilco skulls to skulls in West Africa or Egypt. In fact, Vargas (1974:319; 1996) explicitly rejects Wiercinski¹s finding of 12 races at Tlatilco and claims of a genetic African contribution to the population. Comas (1971), a prominent Mexican physical anthropologist, reviewed claims, including Wiercinski¹s work, for a pre-Columbian African presence in the New World and found them unwarranted.
COMAS, J. 1973. Transatlantic Hypothesis on the Peopling of America: Caucasoids and Negroids. Journal of Human Evolution 2: 75-92.
VARGAS, L.A. 1974. Caracteres Craneanos Discontinuos en la Población de Tlatilco, México. Anales de Antropología 11: 307-328.
-----1995. Personal communication, June 1.
WIERCINSKI, A. 1971. Afinidades Raciales de Algunas Poblaciones Antiguas de México. Anales del Instituto Nacional de Antropología e Historia 7a época 2:123-143.
WIERCINSKI, A. 1972. Inter and Intrapopulational Racial Differentiation of Tlatilco, Cerro de las Mesas, Teotihuacan, Monte Albán and Yucatan Maya. Actas, Documentos Y Memorias XXXIX Congreso Internacional de Americanistas (Lima, 1970). vol 1: 231-252.
Thus-- the people Luis Vargas for example, who have actually done the research and looked at the skeletons flatly contradict you. Bernard Ortiz de Montellano
Posted by Clyde Winters (Member # 10129) on :
supercar quote: ________________________________________________________________ Indeed, speaking of contradictions, it is interesting how Winters relies on these [scientifically outmoded] European constructed typologies, and goes onto call others who reject these, as the Eurocentric-minded folks. ___________________________________________________________________
I can accept these measurements because scholars like Diop and Keita have shown how they relate to Africans and not Europeans as I pointed out in the pictures above relating to the so called Europeans in the Wiercinski study.
Dongolian
Anatolian
.....
Posted by SidiRom (Member # 10364) on :
----- Original Message ----- From: Bernard Ortiz de Montellano
CLAIM
Other sources have noted striking similarities between West Africans and Native-Americans. Leo Weiner devotes an entire section in the second volume of his work Africa and the Discovery of America. This chapter entitled “The Mandingo Elements in Mexico” spans nearly one-hundred pages. He demonstrates similarities in language, clothing, symbols, adornments, and coutneless other cultural aspects. His work extensively studies the Mande, Malinke, Mandigo, Bambara, Asante, and many others. He concludes his chapter by noting “…in the past a relation had existed between the Mexicans and the Negroes…this relation [is] positive and irrefutable evidence.” ******** BOM-- Weiner a self taught Russian linguist who wrote in the 1920's is totally hopeless in his Nahuatl linguistics and his grasp of Aztec culture is equally weak. Weiner was the principal source for Van Sertima's 1976 book, and was quoted extensively. Subsequently, Van Sertima admitted that Weiner's Nahuatl linguistics were not correct. "I think, in quite a number of cases, Wiener's linguistics were very poor and I have made that very clear. From the very beginning of my first essay into this subject, I spoke of the fragile pillars of philology upon which much of this thesis was built. (Van Sertima 1992:53)" Since the claimant here is not retracting Weiner's claims, I'll cite Van Sertima's restatement of Wiener's arguments. I'll insert my comments in the text inside square brackets,in a web site they could be bolded or made a different color?
Van Sertima (1976: 99) claims that evidence for the pochteca, the "first foreign traders" [BOM the pochteca were not "foreign traders" but rather Aztec long distance traders] is given because they brought items into Mexico that were copied from Mandingo prototypes and linguistic evidence proves it. Van Sertima cites Sahagún [BOM actually Wiener] that they sold mantles (chimalli) and waitcloths (maxtli). Wiener says that in Maya, chimalli is translated as "shield, buckler," and that valpalchimalli, a derivative of the word, is translated as "battle cloak." [BOM Barreda Vásquez (1980: 100) cites chimal as "shield" but the Nahuatl word- valpalchimal cannot be found in dictionaries]. Van Sertima continues: A study of the word in the Mexican languages establishes a relationship between buckler and cloak. In Maya, in addition there is chim and chimil meaning "pouch." These oddly linked ideas are also contained in terms found in the Mande languages. They have an Arabic origin and came into the mande languages through the Arab caravan trade. An Arabic term is simla (plural simal, pronounced "chimal").
[BOM- Actually chimalli means shield in Nahuatl not in Maya (Karttunen 1983:52; Simeon 1977: 103). The Nahuatl name for mantle is quachtli (Simeon 1977: 396). Before we get lost in Mande languages, I have to point out that the pochteca sold quachtli (cloth mantles) not chimalli. Second, there is no need to claim a Maya origin since chimalli is a perfectly good Nahuatl word for "shield". The Maya word for "shield" is pacal in an important dialect and maax in another, chimalli is not a native Maya word (Barrera Vasquez 1980: 511, 620). Wiener's linguistics in Mande are also faulty. The best Mande dictionary is Delafosse (1929, 1955). There is no word like simla in Mande (Delafosse 1955: 659). The words for "shield" in Mande are: bena, terefa (Delafosse 1929: 368), a metal shield is called "nege bena" (Delafosse 1929: 368).
Van Sertima (1976:100) says that maxtli [BOM- actually maxtlatl (Simeon 1977: 267)] means "a waistcloth to hide the nudity" and that it is tied around the private parts of a woman as an intimate adornment [BOM- in fact, it a loincloth worn by males]. Quoting Van Sertima, "It is shown to correspond with the Malinke word, masiti, "adornment," Bambara masiri, "ornamentation, toilet." There is also the female loincloth, which in Mexico is nagua. This barely covered the woman's privates, falling from the waist to the middle of the thigh. It may be traced back to nagba in Mande, from lagba in Malinke and Dyula (intimate female cover-cloth) to lagam in Arabic which is menstrual cloth."
[BOM- Since the crucial fact is that maxtlatl is a male garment and that Aztec women wore skirts called cueitl, the linguistic excursion in Africa is useless. The other linguistic excursion is also useless since nagua is NOT a Nahuatl or Maya word. It is a word in Spanish meaning skirt (not female loincloth or menstrual cover) and is derived from the Taino language spoken in the Caribbean. The letter g is not used in either Nahuatl or Maya.] The words "masiti," "masiri" or "nagba" are not found in Delafosse (1955). Lagba means ""intimate female vestment equivalent to menstrual cloth." (Delafosse 1955: 453). This is not linguistically similar to "nagua", and it is not a skirt.
Van Sertima (1976 100) without a specific citation says that Motolinía called the marketplace "tian-quiz-co" and says it may have been derived from tan-goz-mao, a word for trader in West Africa . [BOM- Van Sertima does not specify the language involved. Motolinía ( Benavente 1971: 74, 205, 368, 372, 373) spells it tianguez twice, tiyantiztli, twice, tianquiztli once and only one time as tiyanquizco. The correct word (Karttunen 1983: 240) is tianquiztli-co market + place. Simeon (1977: 546) has tianquiztli market, root tiamiqui = to sell]. Wiener has a habit of conveniently jumping around from one West African language to another. However, the claim is that the Mande language was the one that was borrowed from. In Mande the word for trader is "dyago kela" or "fireli kela" (Delafosse 1955: 529), and marketplace is "loro, sara" (Delafosse 1955: 529. None of these are remotely like tianquiztli. ****** A couple more examples of Wiener via Van Sertima 1976:
(1976:94) "nama" = werewolf cult and priests and heads of cult as "nama-tigi"
Delafosse (1955: 534) nama = slippery (adj)., depression caused on surface of water by an eddy (noun). (1955: 749) tigi, tiki, (Malinke generally) tiki. "Master, owner, author" Delafosse (1929: 389) chief in general "ku-ntigi"
(1976:97) "... na-ba in the Habbes-Gara language for "masked men," who are known as the nama in Malinke. In Malinke we also get nama-koro, which literally means "hyena wise men" which is the exact translation of the Nahuatl Coyotli-naual, meaning "coyote wise men," where the American coyote (werewolf of the prairies) is substituted for the African hyena (werewolf of the savannahs).
[BOM 1) Coyotlinahual means "Coyote his disguise" and is the god of the feather workers not pochteca. This deity was considered to be actually an animal double of Tezcatlipoca a major Aztec deity. As pointed out above, Coyotl-i-nahual does not mean coyote wise men. The verb mati means "to know. "Wise person, sage, scholar is tlamatini (Karttunen 1983: 138, 231)].
Delafosse (1955: 532) na-ba not listed. Delafosse (1955: 404-408) koro = "older brother/sister", "support", "terrestrial iguana" etc. Delafosse (1929: 501) hyena (in general) "na(as in pâte)-ma; suru; gyu-gyu; toro-ma [BOM perhaps na-ma koro "hyena older brother"]?
******* References
Barreda Vásquez, A., ed. 1980. Diccionario Maya Cordemex. Merida, Yucatán: Ediciones Cordemex. Benavente, Fr. T de (Motolinía). 1971 [1540]. Memoriales. E. O'Gorman, ed. Mexico: UNAM. Delafosse, Maurice. 1929. *La Langue Mandingue et ses Dialectes (Malinke, Bambara, Dioula)*. Vol 1. Intro. Grammaire, Lexique Francais-Mandingue). Paris: Librarie Orientaliste Paul Geuthner. Delafosse, Maurice. 1955. *La Langue Mandingue et ses Dialectes (Malinke, Bambara, Dioula)*. Vol 2. Dictionnaire Mandingue-Francaise. Paris: Librarie Paul Geuthner. Karttunen, F. 1983. An Analytical Dictionary of Nahuatl. Austin: Univ. Texas Press. Simeon, R. 1977. Diccionario de la lengua Nahuatl o mexicana. Mexico: Siglo Veintiuno. Van Sertima, I. 1976. They Came Before Columbus. NY: Random House. Van Sertima, I. 1992 "Van Sertima's Address to the Smithsonian," In I. Van Sertima, ed. African Presence in Early America, 29-55. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Books,
Posted by rasol (Member # 4592) on :
quote:I can accept these measurements because scholars like Diop and Keita have shown how they relate to Africans and not Europeans
^ Misleading, mis-representation of Dr. Keita.
Keita does not claim that Olmecs were African.
Moreover Keita has rejected the outdated racial typologies of negroid-k-zoid-and mongol-oid that you continue to cling to.
Keita and virtually all current bioanthropologists - fundamentally disagree with you.
Posted by SidiRom (Member # 10364) on :
quote:Originally posted by rasol:
quote:I can accept these measurements because scholars like Diop and Keita have shown how they relate to Africans and not Europeans
^ Misleading, mis-representation of Dr. Keita.
Keita does not claim that Olmecs were African.
Moreover Keita has rejected the outdated racial typologies of negroid-k-zoid-and mongol-oid that you continue to cling to.
Keita and virtually all current bioanthropologists - fundamentally disagree with you.
I vouch for that. Keita is a great read (thanks rasol)
Posted by RU2religious (Member # 4547) on :
I by no means believe Rasol and Supercar to be Eurocentric nor Afrocentric, yet I do feel on this particular topic they are being a little bias...
If they African pointed Columbus to the direction of the American and taught him make this voyage to the Americas then it is possible that they have made the voyages themselves. When they made the voyages, could it be possible that some of them didn't make it back, yet decided to stay on T.I? Of course!!
Could there have been a way of migrations from the West Africans who directed the Spaniard to what they called the new land? Of course...
This is possible and needs to be re-evaluated. If the skulls were of African origins and the Stone seemed to be African then then need to be added back into the discusion and not take out.
Opinion only!!!!
Posted by Hotep2u (Member # 9820) on :
Greetings
Salsassin you still need glasses, because Elephants have long tails just like the statue
Clyde Winters your Icon speaks volumes so keep DRILLING the TRUTH because you have them against the wall and all they can do now is just Imagine how to respond.
Hotep
Posted by rasol (Member # 4592) on :
quote:Originally posted by RU2religious:
If they African pointed Columbus to the direction of the American and taught him make this voyage to the Americas then it is possible that they have made the voyages themselves. When they made the voyages, could it be possible that some of them didn't make it back, yet decided to stay on T.I?
I agree that this is possible. I never suggested otherwise.
quote:Originally posted by RU2religious: I by no means believe Rasol and Supercar to be Eurocentric nor Afrocentric
Thank you.
quote: yet I do feel on this particular topic they are being a little bias...
Why? See above, and then actually quote me to the effect of bias, if you can. If you can't, then you are just attacking strawmen, and there is nothing for me to address. Such are the requirements of logical discourse. Posted by SidiRom (Member # 10364) on :
quote:Originally posted by RU2religious: I by no means believe Rasol and Supercar to be Eurocentric nor Afrocentric, yet I do feel on this particular topic they are being a little bias...
If they African pointed Columbus to the direction of the American and taught him make this voyage to the Americas then it is possible that they have made the voyages themselves. When they made the voyages, could it be possible that some of them didn't make it back, yet decided to stay on T.I?
Where is your evidence that Africans pointed anyone to the Americas in the first place?
Posted by Clyde Winters (Member # 10129) on :
Tlatilco is not strictly an Olmec site. As I said before 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. You just have not read Wiercinski carefully.
The evidence of African skeletons found at many Olmec sites, and their trading partners from the Old World found by Dr. Andrzej Wiercinski prove the cosmopolitan nature of Olmec society. 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 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 initial phase has been found at Tlatilco. Moreover, the pottery from this site is engraved with Olmec signs.
Rossum and Vargas has criticized the work of Wiercinski because he found that not only blacks, but whites were also present in ancient America. To support this view he (1) claims that Wiercinski was wrong because he found that Negro/Black people lived in Shang China, and 2) that he compared ancient skeletons to modern Old World people.
First, it was not surprising that Wiercinski found affinities between African/Negro and ancient Chinese populations, because everyone knows that many Negro/African/Oceanic skeletons have been found in ancient China see: Kwang-chih Chang, (1976,1977, p.76,1987, pp.64,68) The Archaeology of ancient China. These Blacks were spread throughout Kwangsi, Kwantung, Szechwan, Yunnan and Pearl River delta. Moreover skeletons from Liu-Chiang and Dawenkou were also Negro. Moreover, the Dawenkou skeletons show skull deformation and extraction of teeth customs, analogous to customs among Blacks in Polynesia and Africa.
Secondly, Vargas and Rossum argue that Wiercinski was wrong about Blacks in ancient America because a comparison of modern native American skeletal material and the ancient Olmec skeletal material indicate no admixture. The study of Vargas and Rossum are flawed. They are flawed because the skeletal reference collection they used in their comparison of Olmec skeletal remains and modern Amerindian populations because the Mexicans have been mixing with African and European populations since the 1500's. This has left many components of these Old World people within and among Mexican Amerindians.
Wiercinski on the other hand, compared his SRC to an unmixed European and African samples. This comparison avoided the use of skeletal material that is clearly mixed with Africans and Europeans, in much the same way as the Afro-American people he discussed in his essay who have acquired "white" features since mixing with whites due to the slave trade. Let’s not forget, 75% of the Mexicans have African ancestry. As a result, many of the skeletons used by Vargas in his sample would have had African ancestry this would have skewed his results.
C. Marquez, < Estudios arqueologicas y ethnograficas>. Mexico, 1956.
S.G. Morley, G.W. Brainerd and R.J. Sharer. .The Maya .[/] Stanford University Press, Stanford, California. C.
Vargas G., Luis Alberto, (1974) "Caracteres Craneanos Discontinuos en la Poblacion de Tlatilco, Mexico[I]" Anales de Antropologia vol. 11, pp. 307-328.
......................
Posted by SidiRom (Member # 10364) on :
quote:Originally posted by Hotep2u: Salsassin you still need glasses, because Elephants have long tails just like the statue
You obviously are clueless about Native American pottery. That is a handle and spout.
And elephants do not have rounded perked ears.
Posted by SidiRom (Member # 10364) on :
quote:Originally posted by Clyde Winters: sidirom quote: ______________________________________________________________________
Tlatilco is not strictly an Olmec site. As I said before 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. You just have not read Wiercinski carefully.
The evidence of African skeletons found at many Olmec sites, and their trading partners from the Old World found by Dr. Andrzej Wiercinski prove the cosmopolitan nature of Olmec society. 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 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 initial phase has been found at Tlatilco. Moreover, the pottery from this site is engraved with Olmec signs.
Rossum and Vargas has criticized the work of Wiercinski because he found that not only blacks, but whites were also present in ancient America. To support this view he (1) claims that Wiercinski was wrong because he found that Negro/Black people lived in Shang China, and 2) that he compared ancient skeletons to modern Old World people.
First, it was not surprising that Wiercinski found affinities between African/Negro and ancient Chinese populations, because everyone knows that many Negro/African/Oceanic skeletons have been found in ancient China see: Kwang-chih Chang, (1976,1977, p.76,1987, pp.64,68) The Archaeology of ancient China. These Blacks were spread throughout Kwangsi, Kwantung, Szechwan, Yunnan and Pearl River delta. Moreover skeletons from Liu-Chiang and Dawenkou were also Negro. Moreover, the Dawenkou skeletons show skull deformation and extraction of teeth customs, analogous to customs among Blacks in Polynesia and Africa.
Secondly, Vargas and Rossum argue that Wiercinski was wrong about Blacks in ancient America because a comparison of modern native American skeletal material and the ancient Olmec skeletal material indicate no admixture. The study of Vargas and Rossum are flawed. They are flawed because the skeletal reference collection they used in their comparison of Olmec skeletal remains and modern Amerindian populations because the Mexicans have been mixing with African and European populations since the 1500's. This has left many components of these Old World people within and among Mexican Amerindians.
Wiercinski on the other hand, compared his SRC to an unmixed European and African samples. This comparison avoided the use of skeletal material that is clearly mixed with Africans and Europeans, in much the same way as the Afro-American people he discussed in his essay who have acquired "white" features since mixing with whites due to the slave trade. Let’s not forget, 75% of the Mexicans have African ancestry. As a result, many of the skeletons used by Vargas in his sample would have had African ancestry this would have skewed his results.
C. Marquez, < Estudios arqueologicas y ethnograficas>. Mexico, 1956.
S.G. Morley, G.W. Brainerd and R.J. Sharer. .The Maya .[/] Stanford University Press, Stanford, California. C.
Vargas G., Luis Alberto, (1974) "Caracteres Craneanos Discontinuos en la Poblacion de Tlatilco, Mexico[I]" Anales de Antropologia vol. 11, pp. 307-328.
......................
LOL. You have been shot down so many times over. It's funny. You can be written off as wishful thinking. No anthropologist takes you seriously.
Posted by Supercar (Member # 6477) on :
quote:Posted by Clyde Winters:
supercar quote:
_________________________________________________
I would appreciate it, if you 'cite' my words, rather than interpreting [more like mis-interpreting or mutilating] them.
supercar quote:
So, comparing populations separated by great/extreme geographical distance and a great deal of time depth [when compared to other designated populations], will inevitably result in inaccurate/questionable conclusions, as it leads to disregard for the aforementioned factors. Here, Mexican crania from the pre-classic and classic period are compared to very geographically distant populations, which needless to say, may well have significant time of divergences [used here, in the context of separation of populations] from a common ancestral population(s), not to mention that the specimens selected for comparison with the Mexican series, come from single regions in two continents [one in Africa, one in East Asia, and one in the European subcontinent], namely Uganda, Mongolia and Poland. ________________________________________________
This is hypocrisy you can accept the comparison of ancient and modern skeletons by Walter A. Neves1, Joseph F. Powell2, Andre Prous3, MORPHOLOGICAL AFFINITIES OF THE EARLIEST KNOWN AMERICAN Genet. Mol. Biol. vol.22 n.4 São Paulo Dec. 1999 , yet you refuse to accept the findings of Wiercinski who used the same method. He was testing the theory, were Europeans and Africans found among the Olmec. He proved Africans were among the Olmecs by comparing European and African samples.
I notice that you decided to leave the rest of that citation out, perhaps because it makes it clear what is being said in the rest of the citation, which you clearly aren’t able to address or deny, or else, you are not using the right reading tools to properly interpret what is being said. Instead you are busy knocking straw man on comparison between modern and ancient crania, which has nothing to do with the issue raised, that you are supposedly replying to. And I would have to agree with Rasol, as well as SidiRom’s response that:
quote: Again you show your ignorance. Neves compares actual skulls from multiple populations. Wiercinski attempts to use stereotyped parameters of 3 archetypal racial groups. That in itself is a huge difference in methodology.
Neves et al. don’t use nonsensical racial typology to come to their conclusions, nor do they make any claims of Paleo-Americans being Africans, despite the observed affinities between the mentioned American, South Pacific, East Asian and African specimens. Matter of fact, they conclude that the earliest Paleo-Americans come from east Asia:
"The results obtained clearly confirm the idea that the Americas were first colonized by a generalized Homo sapiens population which inhabited East Asia in the Late Pleistocene - Neves et al.
And they indeed do use crania from much broader part of globe;
“In this work the extra-continental morphological affinities of a Paleo-Indian skeleton well dated between 11,000 and 11,500 years B.P. (Lapa Vermelha IV Hominid 1, or "Luzia") is investigated, using as comparative samples Howells' (1989) world-wide modern series and Habgood's (1985) Old World Late Pleistocene fossil hominids .” - Neves et al."
...which is why it is essential that you answer Rasol's earlier questions, as it will gauge whether you actually understand what is being communicated here:
Dr. Winters I have simple questions for you.
Do you understand what the above is saying?
Do you see how the conclusion is derived?
Do you see how it differs from what you are saying?
Yes, or no?
Also...
Though forensic classifications based on Howells collection have their own shortcomings for reasons I stated earlier, which you decided to leave out of that citation, which you intentionally mutilated, Howells world-wide modern series doesn’t only include just a few series from single regions of geographical extremes from select continents; there are more material involved here to work with, and the same applies to the Late Pleistocene specimens.
Posted by Clyde Winters (Member # 10129) on :
rasol quote: __________________________________________________________________quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- I can accept these measurements because scholars like Diop and Keita have shown how they relate to Africans and not Europeans --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
^ Misleading, mis-representation of Dr. Keita.
Keita does not claim that Olmecs were African.
Moreover Keita has rejected the outdated racial typologies of negroid-k-zoid-and mongol-oid that you continue to cling to. ___________________________________________________________
I never said Keita claimed the Olmec were Africans, I was talking about the fact that many of the claims that the ancient Egyptians were Caucasian were false. This made it possible to examine Wiercinski's work and assign the European types he mention in his paper to the subsaharan African group where they properly belong.
Posted by SidiRom (Member # 10364) on :
LMAO. So you take a paper proven incorrect and then try to use the evidence that another paoer was incorrect about caucasians, to try to claim caucasian claims in another country are really African as well. You are too funny.
Go ask Keita what he thinks of your 'deductive' powers so we can laugh.
Posted by Clyde Winters (Member # 10129) on :
sidirom quote: ___________________________________________________________________ LMAO. So you take a paper proven incorrect and then try to use the evidence that another paoer was incorrect about caucasians, to try to claim caucasian claims in another country are really African as well. You are too funny.
Go ask Keita what he thinks of your 'deductive' powers so we can laugh. __________________________________________________________________ This is not deduction its called scientific research. You read sources , study their content and then use them as evidence when testing hypotheses.
....
Posted by Supercar (Member # 6477) on :
quote:Originally posted by RU2religious: I by no means believe Rasol and Supercar to be Eurocentric nor Afrocentric, yet I do feel on this particular topic they are being a little bias...
How so?
quote:RU2religious:
If they African pointed Columbus to the direction of the American and taught him make this voyage to the Americas then it is possible that they have made the voyages themselves. When they made the voyages, could it be possible that some of them didn't make it back, yet decided to stay on T.I? Of course!!
Could there have been a way of migrations from the West Africans who directed the Spaniard to what they called the new land? Of course...
This is possible and needs to be re-evaluated. If the skulls were of African origins and the Stone seemed to be African then then need to be added back into the discusion and not take out.
Opinion only!!!!
Again, RU2religious, when it comes to issues African, "possibility" simply isn't enough; it has to be proven to be! This is the issue at hand, how earlier/pre-Columbian "possible" African arrivals in the "New World" as "African" initiatives, not as involuntary parties to traveling with European invaders, can become "established" and undeniable. For this to happen, much more compelling and organized evidential information has to be put forth to make the case. Thus far, I haven't seen any evidence of such caliber from advocates of pre-Columbian African arrivals in the "New World". I simply say it how I see it. Posted by SidiRom (Member # 10364) on :
Sorry Ahmad, but other peoples around the world have that same phenotype. Including some native American groups with no African Admixture. Posted by ausar (Member # 1797) on :
SidiRom, it's one thing to debate people and another to try to humilate them. The posting of Dr. Winters personal picture and insults is uncalled for.
Posted by rasol (Member # 4592) on :
quote:Neves et al. don’t use nonsensical racial typology to come to their conclusions, nor do they make any claims of Paleo-Americans being Africans, despite the observed affinities between the mentioned American, South Pacific, East Asian and African specimens. Matter of fact, they conclude that the earliest Paleo-Americans come from east Asia
In this regard, Wiercinski is similar to Howells who studied East African Paleolithic crania and made the infamous remark that they were "non african" in nature - instead being more likened to everything from Peruvian Indians to Japanese Ainu.
The problem was he compared native East Africans to Niger Congo Africans, and *not* Cushitic and Nilo Saharans such as the Masai, Oromo, Somali who they in fact physically most closely resembed.
This error is critical - because in fact, the Paleolithic precense of these morphologies demonstrate their native-African antiquity.
If you are testing a hypothesis on relation of data sets A thru F, wherein ultimately *all* sets derive from A [Africa], you must test as many of the sets as possible to derive at the most sound conclusion.
It does no good to conclude that set: E is African, and set F is not -> if you don't test sets B, C and D.
Howells and Wiercinski's conclusions are both invalid because they used a'priori' [circular] reasoning to justify faulty comparison sets, which lead right back to fallacious prior held conclusions.
This is a classic example of flawed methodology in anthropology.
For Howells is means Africans can only look like his stereotypes - and if they don't, then rather than reach the logical conclusion- his stereotypes are proven wrong; he reaches a completely illogical and warped conclusion - that Africans who don't meet his racial stereotypes are not African.
Wiercinski probably just overlooked the Pacific possibilities for Olmec ancestry - but Howells acted in malice. He evaded logical comparisons in order to reach a desired and utterly illogical conclusion.
Posted by SidiRom (Member # 10364) on :
Did Wiercinski just overlook East Africans when he was measuring Egyptians?
Posted by SidiRom (Member # 10364) on :
Its an armadillo. Posted by SidiRom (Member # 10364) on :
The problems of transatlantic diffusion theories
The real challenge facing oceanic hyperdiffusionists is not so much that the comparisons of data they build their theories on are necessarily weaker than those made by more orthodox "evolution in situ" scholars. It is that their theories are necessarily more complicated and leave more to explain, thus leaving more to go wrong with their explanations.
The chief problem with positing a West African origin for Olmec culture is that one would expect such kinds of trans-Atlantic travel to leave EITHER more OR fewer traces in Mesoamerica, than the ones we actually find.
Occasional one-way ocean crossings are not hard to believe in during much of prehistory. There are records in early modern times, for instance, of Inuits who survived an accidental kayak trip to West Europe; certainly W. Africans could have wound up in the New World ~1500 B.C.-~500 C.E. But those Inuits did not establish colonies in the Hebrides, and we do not seek the origins of Renaissance realism in Inuit animal carvings.
Any WA fishers or traders who landed in Mesoamerica would have been unlikely to set sail with women, plant or animal domesticates, and toolmaking specialists - the kind of cargo you need in order to transplant your culture onto an alien shore already settled by others. At their luckiest, these stranded sailors would have been adopted by an indigenous tribe, married native women and adapted to native culture. It is most unlikely they would have been elected to local chieftaincies, any more than today's refugees wind up running for president in their lands of refuge.
If they did pull this stunt off, thereby persuading Native American sculptors to render them immortal - then they must have done so by HAVING SOMETHING ON the locals, culturally. Some items of Old World culture would have had to give them an advantage over pre-Olmec Mesoamericans. Well, what items were they? Millet or cattle or bronzemaking? And if they had such items, *where were they in 1492*? Why hadn't they diffused far and wide throughout Native America, the way the Spaniards' horses did, far beyond the writ of the King of Spain?
In modern experience, seafaring cultures that are successful enough to plant colonies on previously occupied shores are usually successful enough to establish regular round-trip voyages. Any fool can set out to sea, after all; the test of seamanship is being able to get back home again, as any sailor will tell you. But the supposition of round-trip travel between Guinea and Mexico creates even more problems --
E.g., why would they have bothered? For what did they trade, that was in short supply in WA and so valuable that it would be worth the incredible hazards of trans-Atlantic travel?
E.g., why didn't they bother to pick up any of those incredibly useful Mesoamerican plant cultigens that had swept across Europe by 100 years after Columbus - as well as Africa and Asia? Or did they really, and WA'ans actually had maize and tobacco and tomatoes all along - but somehow the Euros overlooked them?
E.g., how come they didn't establish "Olmec" way-stations? Nobody in his right mind sails directly from Europe or Africa to the Isthmus of Tehuantepec - you have to go via the Greater Antilles and Florida, as the Spaniards did. And you would found colonies there, as the Spaniards did, leaving plentiful signs of them today. So where is the "WA Olmec phase" of archeology in Florida, Cuba, Hispaniola and Puerto Rico? You can't have it just in Mexico.
E.g., why didn't they transmit Old World diseases to the New World the way Europeans and Africans apparently did in 1500? Epidemics devastated Native Americans from pole to pole, post- Columbus, arguing long isolation from Old World pathogens. If WA'ans had been mucking around in Olmec Country, would not that patch of Mesoamericans at least have experienced these diseases at that time? But in that case, (a) they would have been already present in Mexico by 1500 and (b) they would not have been as lethal as history records they were at that time.
One could go on and on. The problem is not that one can't cobble together an argument that ingeniously links, say, Mandes with Olmecs - or any other hyperdiffusionist pairing - but that in order to make ANY such theory work, one is driven to add so many bells and whistles and other moving parts that it becomes increasingly cumbersome and unlikely.
Oceanic diffusion theories are the scientific equivalent of Jaguars: man, they look sexy and they're sure a lot of fun to drive, but they're constantly breaking down. Scientists prefer indigenous evolution theories (at least to go to work in) because they're more like Hondas: simple and easily maintainable. *That* kind of elegance.
So it does not require a "conspiracy" or "blindness" on the part of orthodox thinkers to turn up their noses at glamorous diffusion propositions. Diffusion seems to explain one comparison neatly, but usually at the cost of making six other explanations more complex. There is an extra burden of proof to make the complex theories work BETTER than the simpler explanation of chance convergence.
-Tony West
aawest@critpath.org
Posted by SidiRom (Member # 10364) on :
Where was the malaria and yellow fever that was endemic to Africa?
The natives had no resistance to smallpox, influenza, or plague or even to mild (to us) diseases like measles. Entire populations were virtually wiped out, with some Atlantic coast tribes losing 90 percent of their adult members. Some historians go so far as to say European diseases reduced the pre-contact population of the New World as a whole by 90 percent or more. One says the population of central Mexico was reduced from 25 million in 1519 to 3 million by 1568 and only 750,000 by the early 1600s, 3 percent of the pre-conquest total.
Granted, some of these horrifying numbers may be arrived at by exaggerating the size of the original population. One researcher says there were 18 million people living north of Mexico before Columbus, but a more conservative estimate puts it at four million and some say only 1 million. Maybe there were only 12.5 million precolumbian Mexicans, not 25 million. Even so we're talking 94 percent mortality for central Mexico, maybe 87 percent for the Americas overall, reducing the population from 80 million in 1500 to 10 million 50 years later. One can make a good case that it was European germs rather than European military prowess that conquered the New World. One can also argue that disease led to the African slave trade. The conquistadors would have been happy to enslave local labor except that it was dead.
Why were the natives so vulnerable? The best guess is that Europe had been a crossroads for war and commerce for millennia and so had encountered an extraordinary number of pestilences, while the Americas were isolated and had not. Europeans had also spent a long time around domestic animals, which were the source of many of the most virulent diseases to afflict humans in the Old World. In contrast, native Americans had few domestic animals. As a consequence Europeans had developed some resistance to disease but native Americans hadn't.
In addition to propelling the establishment of Christianity in Mexico and Latin America, viruses played a role in enlarging the African slave trade throughout the Americas. African blacks are relatively resistant to yellow fever virus, whereas Caucasians and native Americans are much more susceptible. Because so many native Americans had died from yellow fever, too few workers remained to do chores in the fields and mines. The Spaniards then imported black slaves as labor replacements (3). The net result was expansion of black slave importation to the Americas (4); ironically, the yellow fever virus initially came from Africa aboard trading and slave ships.
In addition to Spain, other European countries staked out colonies in the Americas. The French colonized Haiti and, in keeping with their observation that the Africans resisted infection by yellow fever and therefore were stronger workers, used primarily black labor for their plantations. But viruses altered human history again when black slaves revolted in the early years of the nineteenth century. To put down that uprising, Napoleon sent over 27,000 crack troops to Haiti. Before long, the vast majority of these French men came in contact with the yellow fever virus transmitted by mosquitos and died from the infection. This huge loss influenced the decision not to risk the even larger numbers of troops necessary to protect other French territories in the New World and was one of the major considerations leading Napoleon to negotiate the sale of the Louisiana Territory to the United States (5).
Yellow fever is caused by a virus and is spread by the yellowfever mosquito, Aedes aegypti (L.). The disease, which originated in Africa and spread to the New World during the slave trade in the 1500s, affects humans as well as monkeys. Typically, yellow fever is expressed within one week of infection. Mild symptoms include headaches, fever, muscular pains, and nausea. Severe symptoms include dangerously high fevers, severe headaches, muscular pains, jaundice, and vomiting (characterized by black material and fluid). Yellow fever can lead to delirium, coma, and death.
Yellow fever and the yellowfever mosquito are thought to have originated in Africa. It was brought to the New World on slave ships in the 1500s. Yellow fever ravaged Europeans in the New World. Buckley (1985) stated, "The West Indies was, quite simply, a deathtrap for whites without immunity to yellow fever." The British were repeatedly stung by the disease in the Caribbean and South America. In 1741, during an expedition to capture Peru and Mexico, British forces were reduced from 27,000 to 7,000 by the dreaded disease they called "black vomit." Coastal towns and hamlets in the United States were particularly vulnerable to the disease in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries. Even as late as 1878, a yellow fever epidemic struck more than 100 United States towns, killing at least 20,000 people.
Was malaria present in the Amazon before the European conquest? Available evidence and future research agenda http:// midus.wisc.edu/MIDUS%20PIs/Burt_info/Malaria_FIN_Before_the_Conquest(Article_in_press).pdf
Posted by SidiRom (Member # 10364) on :
Posted by SidiRom (Member # 10364) on :
alTakruri pointed out the phenotypes still existed in Amazonian Brazil.
I haven't even been able to find that type of pottery in the area.
Posted by Hotep2u (Member # 9820) on :
Greetings:
FACT NO.1 PEOPLE WITH BROAD FEATURES AND DARK SKIN WERE IN SOUTH AMERICA BEFORE COLUMBUS, SOME SAY WEST AFRIKANS SOME SAY AUSTRALIANS BUT THE FACT IS FACT.
Sidirom seems DESPERATE you are trying too hard, The CANARY CURRENTS brough WEST AFRIKANS to SOUTH AMERICA, only small groups of WEST AFRIKANS came in order to share their knowledge with the Native South Americans. The statue of a Elephant is a Elephant it is NOT a possum, or the numerous other pictures you keep showing. Sidirom must be really be DESPERATE. Sidirom the statue looks like a rabbit,frog,or parrot or is it PINK Dumbo the Mastodon reincarnated because you seem to be delusional.
Your losing the debate Sidirom because the Yellow Fever is a mosquito Problem, is Sidirom claiming mosquitoes originated in Afrika? The information you supplied was a poor interpretation of the Scientific Data. When they claimed Probably came from Afrika does that mean All AFrikans are immune to Yellow Fever because I can assure you high numbers of native Afrikans die from Yellow Fever also.
Your losing the debate Sidirom because your being extremely BIASED and we all see it. Now after you finished reading Ivan Sertima get back to me because I have not even scratched the surface towards PROOF so I will suggest you read Clyde Winters and Ivan Sertima and see if you still disagree.
Australians were located too far versus West Afrikans who are located just 1-2 weeks away due to the Natural CANARY CURRENTS which leads directly from West Afrika to South America.
Locate west Afrika (Home of the Manding) on the map and follow the red line and notice where it leads, If the line leads to South America then Canary Currents leads from West Afrika to South America
Which specific Oceanic Currents leads Directly from Australia to South America?
Hotep
Posted by rasol (Member # 4592) on :
quote:FACT NO.1 PEOPLE WITH BROAD FEATURES AND DARK SKIN WERE IN SOUTH AMERICA BEFORE COLUMBUS, SOME SAY WEST AFRIKANS SOME SAY AUSTRALIANS BUT THE FACT IS FACT.
Absolutely right Hotep. And it is also worth noting that some Eurocentrists use those tropical features to define "African" in some sort of racial sense - when it suites their purposes, but then have to abandon the notion when such features and Black peoples turn up all over the ancient world.
It's also hypocritical to try to define a tropical disease like Malaria as "African", unless you define the people who carry it - including 100's of millions of Asians and Indians who carry it as also "African."
Eurocentric rhetoric is certainly inconsistent, hypocritical and racist, and this is true notwithstanding the issue of hard evidences of West African precense in the America's in pre-Columbian times. Posted by RU2religious (Member # 4547) on :
I have this book called the Tutankhamun prophecies by Maurice Cotterell
Here is an except from Pages 31...
"Clearly, it seems likely that cultural contact across the oceans interfused some of the beliefs and customs between the two civilisations. Recent research from various sources suggests trading links existed between Egypt and Mexico.
First, ancient Egyptian tomb paintings, from the time of the fourth dynasty Pharaohs in around 2600 BC, depicts paintings of papyrus reed boats that many believed capable of carrying crews, cargoes and legends from the old world Egypt to the new world of central America. Norwegian explorer Thor Heyerdahl believed these primitive boats could survive transoceanic passages. To prove the point he journeyed to Lake Chad, in the Afrian interior, acquiring the skills to build a boat, along the lines of those in the tomb paintin gs, which would cope with the long sea journey.
Assembling a rew of seven, he set sail from the West Afrian port of Safi, in Morocco, in a papyrus reed boat named Ra (after the Egyptian sun-god), whih was 13.7 metres (45 feet) long, 4.6 metres (15 feet) wide and 1.8 metres (6 feet) deep.
Carried by the trade winds and equatorial currents, Ra covered 3,000 miles (4,830 kilometres) in just under eight weeks. But defects in the steering gear and inferior structural techniques used to bind the reeds dogged the voyage. Ra foundered, suffering damage in a Caribbean storm, and sank. Undeterred, Heyerdahl modified the design of his craft, taking note of reed boats built by the Bolivians Peruvians on the shores of Lake Titicaca in South America. Again setting sail, in 1970 from Safi, Heyerdahl and his new crew of eight reached the West Indies after 57 days at sea. Ra II proved that primitive crossings ould have been made of the Atlanti, from North Africa to central America, using basic tehnology and materials. Heyerdahl had shown that voyages like this could have been made 3,000 years ago.
Secondly, other evidene likewise supports the notion that trading links between the two coninent of Africa and the Americas were well established during Pharaonic Egypt. In March 1992 German researhers investigating the contents of Egyptian mummies called on the expertise of forensic scientist Dr Svetla Balabanova of the Institute of Forensic Medicine at Ulm.
The first mummy to be tested was nicknamed Het-Nut Tawy, 'Lady of the Two Lnads', an Egyptian mummy of the twenty-first dynasty (around 1069 BC) whose coffin was richly decorated with pictures of the sky-goddess Nut. With great surprise Balabaova discovered the presence of large quantities of nicotine and cocaine in samples of this and serveral other mummies kkept in the Egyptian Museum in Munich.
At first she believed the find to be a mistake; neither of these drugs was available to Egyptians of the twenty-first dynasty. Tobacco was unknown before the introduction from the West Indies by the followers of Columbus, after AD 1492, while the coca plant which grew only in the Americas was unknown to have travelled eastwards much before Victorian times.
In the spring of 1992 the results of the discoveries were published in the scientific magazine Naturwissenschaften (79, 358, 1992), casing uproar among historians, biologists, archaeologists and anthropologist. If Balabanova was right, then everybody else must be wrong, and therefore even her fellow scientists turned against her, branding her, as so often has happened to leadin-edge scientists throughout history, a heretic.
She had made a mistake, they all agreed. In England sceptical archaeologist Rosalie David, keeper of the Manchester Museum's own collection of mummies, insisted: 'Either the tests had been flawed or the mummies themselves fakes.'
But Balanova was a trained forensic toxicologist. She had often worked with polie on investigations and autopsies. She stood by her methodology. She had used a proven method of analysis known as the 'hair shaft' technique: when a deceased hads consumed a drug, traces are carreied to the protein of the hair shaft follicle, where they remain for ever. The test could be used not only to confirm the presence of a drug but also to rule out any possiblity of contamination of the sample. First the sample was washed in alcohol, then the alcohol was tested to make sure it was clean and free from traces of the drug. Any contamination of the sample by an outside agent must permeate from the outside in. If the alcohol were free of the drug, then any subsequent find of the drug from the same follicle must therefore originate from the inside of the hair follicle, not from outside. This can happen only through consumption of the drug during the deceased's lifetime.
As for authenticity of the mummies, the pedigree of Het-Nut Tawy was not in doubt. King Ludovic I had purchased the mummy in 1845, starting a collection at that time. Records showed he bought this and others from the English trader named Dodwell. Dr Alfred Grimm, curator of the Munich museum, confirmed that inscriptions, amulets and complex embalming methods substatiated the authenticity of the mummy, which was from a tomb used to bury priests and priestesses, followers of the god Amun at Thebes.
Meanwhile, David, at the Manchester Museum, tested some of her own mummies only to find that Balabanova's results were, inexpliably, correct. This meant one of two things: either the Egypitans grew both tobacco and coca or they imported them.
This, too, sent the establishment reeling, beause there was no evidene from botanists that either plant had ever grown indigenously in Egypt. Historians, for their part, insisted that transoceanic communications were unknown and impossible before modern times. But this is not true, as Professor Martin Bernall at Cornell University points out: the Discovery of Norse settlements in Newfoundland in 1965 proved that Vikings had sailed the Atlantic, settling in Newfoundland in around AD 1000, meaning that other, similar voyages could well have been made earlier.
The diffusion of trade could also have occurred from the Americas westwards across the Pacifi. The sweet potato is known to have crossed the Pacific in early times, as did the peanut, which surfaced in western China and pure silk from China is known to have been used in Egypt as early as 1000 BC.
On balance, it seems clear that world trade facilitated the transportation of tobacco and cocaine from the Americas to Egypt either westwards or eastwards prior to 1000 BC."
So in essence it seems to me that a pretty firm argument has been made in this case.
Peace!
Posted by Supercar (Member # 6477) on :
quote:Posted by rasol:
The problem was he compared native East Africans to Niger Congo Africans, and *not* Cushitic and Nilo Saharans such as the Masai, Oromo, Somali who they in fact physically most closely resembed…
For Howells is means Africans can only look like his stereotypes - and if they don't, then rather than reach the logical conclusion- his stereotypes are proven wrong; he reaches a completely illogical and warped conclusion - that Africans who don't meet his racial stereotypes are not African.
Indeed, his preconceived idea of what tropical Africans should look like, had already clouded his judgement of what specimens to collect in his classifications, because he, like you just pointed out, ignored or left out specimens that would reveal greater variability within tropical Africans. So a tropical African, whose morphology happens to fall into the left-out specimens, would be misclassified into some other ethnic group, which is supposed to have some morphological similarities. This may well link the tropical African to a group that has been separated from Africans for quite a long period, and possibly, genetically more distant than members of a group, who didn't closely bear resemblance to the morphology of the aforementioned tropical African. There is great variability within populations, and as said time and again, there is greater variability within the unscientifically contructed so-called "races" than there is between them.
quote:Originally posted by RU2religious: I have this book called the Tutankhamun prophecies by Maurice Cotterell
Here is an except from Pages 31...
Secondly, other evidence likewise supports the notion that trading links between the two coninent of Africa and the Americas were well established during Pharaonic Egypt. In March 1992 German researhers investigating the contents of Egyptian mummies called on the expertise of forensic scientist Dr Svetla Balabanova of the Institute of Forensic Medicine at Ulm.
The first mummy to be tested was nicknamed Het-Nut Tawy, 'Lady of the Two Lnads', an Egyptian mummy of the twenty-first dynasty (around 1069 BC) whose coffin was richly decorated with pictures of the sky-goddess Nut. With great surprise Balabaova discovered the presence of large quantities of nicotine and cocaine in samples of this and serveral other mummies kept in the Egyptian Museum in Munich.
At first she believed the find to be a mistake; neither of these drugs was available to Egyptians of the twenty-first dynasty. Tobacco was unknown before the introduction from the West Indies by the followers of Columbus, after AD 1492, while the coca plant which grew only in the Americas was unknown to have travelled eastwards much before Victorian times.
In the spring of 1992 the results of the discoveries were published in the scientific magazine Naturwissenschaften (79, 358, 1992), casing uproar among historians, biologists, archaeologists and anthropologist. If Balabanova was right, then everybody else must be wrong, and therefore even her fellow scientists turned against her, branding her, as so often has happened to leadin-edge scientists throughout history, a heretic.
She had made a mistake, they all agreed. In England sceptical archaeologist Rosalie David, keeper of the Manchester Museum's own collection of mummies, insisted: 'Either the tests had been flawed or the mummies themselves fakes.'
But Balanova was a trained forensic toxicologist. She had often worked with polie on investigations and autopsies. She stood by her methodology. She had used a proven method of analysis known as the 'hair shaft' technique: when a deceased hads consumed a drug, traces are carreied to the protein of the hair shaft follicle, where they remain for ever. The test could be used not only to confirm the presence of a drug but also to rule out any possiblity of contamination of the sample. First the sample was washed in alcohol, then the alcohol was tested to make sure it was clean and free from traces of the drug. Any contamination of the sample by an outside agent must permeate from the outside in. If the alcohol were free of the drug, then any subsequent find of the drug from the same follicle must therefore originate from the inside of the hair follicle, not from outside. This can happen only through consumption of the drug during the deceased's lifetime...
On balance, it seems clear that world trade facilitated the transportation of tobacco and cocaine from the Americas to Egypt either westwards or eastwards prior to 1000 BC."
RU2religious, more of small but significant pieces of information of this sort, is what to needs be looked for, because even though it isn't entirely susceptible to challenging or questioning, it has potential to get somewhere. I'll demonstrate this with the following questions, as examples:
Is it implied that Dr. Balabanova used the following methods, to determine cocaine in the said mummies?>
"But Balanova was a trained forensic toxicologist. She had often worked with polie on investigations and autopsies. She stood by her methodology. She had used a proven method of analysis known as the 'hair shaft' technique: when a deceased hads consumed a drug, traces are carried to the protein of the hair shaft follicle, where they remain for ever. The test could be used not only to confirm the presence of a drug but also to rule out any possiblity of contamination of the sample. First the sample was washed in alcohol, then the alcohol was tested to make sure it was clean and free from traces of the drug. Any contamination of the sample by an outside agent must permeate from the outside in. If the alcohol were free of the drug, then any subsequent find of the drug from the same follicle must therefore originate from the inside of the hair follicle, not from outside. This can happen only through consumption of the drug during the deceased's lifetime..."
If this is "accepted" standard procedure in detecting the presence of drugs in a deceased in law enforcement and autopsies, why would the methodology now be questioned, when the same procedure is applied to Mummies?
Detection of a drug is one thing, establishing its 'specificity' may be another. Does the said procedure not only detect, but also identifies the 'specific' drug in question? If not, is this mentioned above standard/proven procedure followed by another procedure that reveals the identity of the drug, which would have to also be followed in this case of testing the Mummies?
Why would Dr. Balanova initially think that the find must have been a mistake, if she had followed the proven procedure, which has not been determined to have failed before in detecting and identifying drugs? Whatever the odds of coca plant being grown in ancient Egypt, should have no bearings on the "positive-ness" of what she had identified in the mummies.
Although its absense doesn't necessarily disprove the possibility of cocaine coming from contact with the "New World" in antiquity, are there any stories of people from foreign lands, in the 21st Dynasty or other dynasties, as seen in the likes of "the land of Punt", which could indicate the location to be somewhere in the "New World"?
Could the Egyptians have got it from a third party trader, that didn't necessarily come from the "New World"? If so, have those potential parties of 'antiquity' been investigated?
Dr. Balanova stuck to her guns; shows confidence in her abilities and her findings through the proven methods of revealing drugs in the deceased. Could others indeed be wrong? It is certainly "possible"!
quote: Discovery of Norse settlements in Newfoundland in 1965 proved that Vikings had sailed the Atlantic, settling in Newfoundland in around AD 1000, meaning that other, similar voyages could well have been made earlier.
I look at claims of Viking landings in the "New World" in pre-columbian times, with as much critical eye, as I do with the quite possible pre-columbian African landings in the "New World". Have biological remains of Vikings been positively and irrefutably identified and traced back to pre-columbian times? What are the nature of these settlements such that, it cannot be explained in any other way, but only by the presence of accidental European sea travellers? How did the native Americans deal with these foreigners? Did the Vikings make it back, and were they organized enough to leave details/records of such trips back to Europe?
Speaking of utilizing a critical eye, I posted this piece at the beginning of the thread:
Now, digging in a colonial era graveyard in one of the oldest European cities in Mexico, archaeologists have found what they believe are the oldest remains of slaves brought from Africa to the New World. The remains date between the late-16th century and the mid-17th century, not long after Columbus first set foot in the Americas...
The ratios, he explains, were well off the charts for anyone born in Mesoamerica. Instead, they reflected the geology of West Africa, which is underlain by a massive shield of ancient rock, much older than the geology of Mexico and Central America...
African slaves were brought to the New World as the Spanish needed labor to harvest timber and work in the mines that enriched Spain. Early in their rule, the Spanish enslaved Indians to perform heavy labor, but they turned to the African slave trade as diseases introduced by Europeans decimated native peoples.
Article - courtesy of Terry Devitt, and the University of Wisconsin - Madison.
I note that, all that these folks have as evidence, are skeletal remains that they identified as "Africans", for reasons stated. They claim in an unequivocal manner, that these must have been slaves from Africa during the Spanish colonization of the region, because of the dates indicated by radio-carbon dating, which is said to be between 16th century and the mid-17th century. Aside from the idea that these dates go back to the said timeframes, and that Spanish colonizers were in the region sometime during this period, no evidence had been presented whatsoever on the idea of these remains being those of slaves. Is it "possible" they were slaves? Yes. Is it conclusive that they were? Absolutely not!
Posted by Supercar (Member # 6477) on :
I almost forgot to address the contradictions inherent in this earlier claim of Mr. Winters:
quote:Clyde Winters:
Supercar because your learning environment and experiences in schools (kg-16)has instilled in you an appreciation of the superiority of whites over blacks, and acceptance of the myth that **Blacks** only created civilizations in Africa, your outcome expectations is that all research will prove that **Blacks** have developed no civilizations outside Africa. As a result, you can not accept the evidence of **African skeletons** existing among the Olmecs because it would destroy your self-esteem and sense of well being to know that the Afrocentrists, your sworn enemy, actually have evidence that support a recent spread of African civilizations around the world after 4000 BC, because this would mean that all your learning regarding African people is a lie.
What Mr. Winters fails to recognize, is that had he simply called Blacks natives of regions outside Africa as "Blacks", not Africans, he wouldn't be running into the kinds of questioning he has thus far been receiving. But as we can see, Mr. Winters seems to be equating "Blacks" with Africans, and hence, his reference to "African skeletons" among the Olmecs. This issue has nothing to do with "Blacks" creating civilizations outside Africa, but discerning whom you can call "African" and whom it doesn't make sense to, unless members of the said "Non-African" Blacks so choose to do so...in which case, that would be the subjective choice of the said individuals. However, "objectively" Blacks natives anywhere cannot simply be called Africans if not for geographical, political and cultural reasons, but for biological reasons. You simply cannot use "Africans" interchangeably with "Blacks" just about anywhere [outside Africa] there are native Black folks for obvious reasons. I suspect that this is what drives Mr. Winters to push for "recent" African links.
Posted by RU2religious (Member # 4547) on :
quote:Originally posted by Supercar:
quote:Posted by rasol:
The problem was he compared native East Africans to Niger Congo Africans, and *not* Cushitic and Nilo Saharans such as the Masai, Oromo, Somali who they in fact physically most closely resembed…
For Howells is means Africans can only look like his stereotypes - and if they don't, then rather than reach the logical conclusion- his stereotypes are proven wrong; he reaches a completely illogical and warped conclusion - that Africans who don't meet his racial stereotypes are not African.
Indeed, his preconceived idea of what tropical Africans should look like, had already clouded his judgement of what specimens to collect in his classifications, because he, like you just pointed out, ignored or left out specimens that would reveal greater variability within tropical Africans. So a tropical African, whose morphology happens to fall into the left-out specimens, would be misclassified into some other ethnic group, which is supposed to have some morphological similarities. This may well link the tropical African to a group that has been separated from Africans for quite a long period, and possibly, genetically more distant than members of a group, who didn't closely bear resemblance to the morphology of the aforementioned tropical African. There is great variability within populations, and as said time and again, there is greater variability within the unscientifically contructed so-called "races" than there is between them.
quote:Originally posted by RU2religious: I have this book called the Tutankhamun prophecies by Maurice Cotterell
Here is an except from Pages 31...
Secondly, other evidence likewise supports the notion that trading links between the two coninent of Africa and the Americas were well established during Pharaonic Egypt. In March 1992 German researhers investigating the contents of Egyptian mummies called on the expertise of forensic scientist Dr Svetla Balabanova of the Institute of Forensic Medicine at Ulm.
The first mummy to be tested was nicknamed Het-Nut Tawy, 'Lady of the Two Lnads', an Egyptian mummy of the twenty-first dynasty (around 1069 BC) whose coffin was richly decorated with pictures of the sky-goddess Nut. With great surprise Balabaova discovered the presence of large quantities of nicotine and cocaine in samples of this and serveral other mummies kept in the Egyptian Museum in Munich.
At first she believed the find to be a mistake; neither of these drugs was available to Egyptians of the twenty-first dynasty. Tobacco was unknown before the introduction from the West Indies by the followers of Columbus, after AD 1492, while the coca plant which grew only in the Americas was unknown to have travelled eastwards much before Victorian times.
In the spring of 1992 the results of the discoveries were published in the scientific magazine Naturwissenschaften (79, 358, 1992), casing uproar among historians, biologists, archaeologists and anthropologist. If Balabanova was right, then everybody else must be wrong, and therefore even her fellow scientists turned against her, branding her, as so often has happened to leadin-edge scientists throughout history, a heretic.
She had made a mistake, they all agreed. In England sceptical archaeologist Rosalie David, keeper of the Manchester Museum's own collection of mummies, insisted: 'Either the tests had been flawed or the mummies themselves fakes.'
But Balanova was a trained forensic toxicologist. She had often worked with polie on investigations and autopsies. She stood by her methodology. She had used a proven method of analysis known as the 'hair shaft' technique: when a deceased hads consumed a drug, traces are carreied to the protein of the hair shaft follicle, where they remain for ever. The test could be used not only to confirm the presence of a drug but also to rule out any possiblity of contamination of the sample. First the sample was washed in alcohol, then the alcohol was tested to make sure it was clean and free from traces of the drug. Any contamination of the sample by an outside agent must permeate from the outside in. If the alcohol were free of the drug, then any subsequent find of the drug from the same follicle must therefore originate from the inside of the hair follicle, not from outside. This can happen only through consumption of the drug during the deceased's lifetime...
On balance, it seems clear that world trade facilitated the transportation of tobacco and cocaine from the Americas to Egypt either westwards or eastwards prior to 1000 BC."
RU2religious, more of small but significant pieces of information of this sort, is what to needs be looked for, because even though it isn't entirely susceptible to challenging or questioning, it has potential to get somewhere. I'll demonstrate this with the following questions, as examples:
Is it implied that Dr. Balabanova used the following methods, to determine cocaine in the said mummies?>
"But Balanova was a trained forensic toxicologist. She had often worked with polie on investigations and autopsies. She stood by her methodology. She had used a proven method of analysis known as the 'hair shaft' technique: when a deceased hads consumed a drug, traces are carried to the protein of the hair shaft follicle, where they remain for ever. The test could be used not only to confirm the presence of a drug but also to rule out any possiblity of contamination of the sample. First the sample was washed in alcohol, then the alcohol was tested to make sure it was clean and free from traces of the drug. Any contamination of the sample by an outside agent must permeate from the outside in. If the alcohol were free of the drug, then any subsequent find of the drug from the same follicle must therefore originate from the inside of the hair follicle, not from outside. This can happen only through consumption of the drug during the deceased's lifetime..."
If this is "accepted" standard procedure in detecting the presence of drugs in a deceased in law enforcement and autopsies, why would the methodology now be questioned, when the same procedure is applied to Mummies?
Detection of a drug is one thing, establishing its 'specificity' may be another. Does the said procedure not only detect, but also identifies the 'specific' drug in question? If not, is this mentioned above standard/proven procedure followed by another procedure that reveals the identity of the drug, which would have to also be followed in this case of testing the Mummies?
Why would Dr. Balanova initially think that the find must have been a mistake, if she had followed the proven procedure, which has not been determined to have failed before in detecting and identifying drugs? Whatever the odds of coca plant being grown in ancient Egypt, should have no bearings on the "positive-ness" of what she had identified in the mummies.
Although its absense doesn't necessarily disprove the possibility of cocaine coming from contact with the "New World" in antiquity, are there any stories of people from foreign lands, in the 21st Dynasty or other dynasties, as seen in the likes of "the land of Punt", which could indicate the location to be somewhere in the "New World"?
Could the Egyptians have got it from a third party trader, that didn't necessarily come from the "New World"? If so, have those potential parties of 'antiquity' been investigated?
Dr. Balanova stuck to her guns; shows confidence in her abilities and her findings through the proven methods of revealing drugs in the deceased. Could others indeed be wrong? It is certainly "possible"!
quote: Discovery of Norse settlements in Newfoundland in 1965 proved that Vikings had sailed the Atlantic, settling in Newfoundland in around AD 1000, meaning that other, similar voyages could well have been made earlier.
I look at claims of Viking landings in the "New World" in pre-columbian times, with as much critical eye, as I do with the quite possible pre-columbian African landings in the "New World". Have biological remains of Vikings been positively and irrefutably identified and traced back to pre-columbian times? What are the nature of these settlements such that, it cannot be explained in any other way, but only by the presence of accidental European sea travellers? How did the native Americans deal with these foreigners? Did the Vikings make it back, and were they organized enough to leave details/records of such trips back to Europe?
Speaking of utilizing a critical eye, I posted this piece at the beginning of the thread:
Now, digging in a colonial era graveyard in one of the oldest European cities in Mexico, archaeologists have found what they believe are the oldest remains of slaves brought from Africa to the New World. The remains date between the late-16th century and the mid-17th century, not long after Columbus first set foot in the Americas...
The ratios, he explains, were well off the charts for anyone born in Mesoamerica. Instead, they reflected the geology of West Africa, which is underlain by a massive shield of ancient rock, much older than the geology of Mexico and Central America...
African slaves were brought to the New World as the Spanish needed labor to harvest timber and work in the mines that enriched Spain. Early in their rule, the Spanish enslaved Indians to perform heavy labor, but they turned to the African slave trade as diseases introduced by Europeans decimated native peoples.
Article - courtesy of Terry Devitt, and the University of Wisconsin - Madison.
I note that, all that these folks have as evidence, are skeletal remains that they identified as "Africans", for reasons stated. They claim in an unequivocal manner, that these must have been slaves from Africa during the Spanish colonization of the region, because of the dates indicated by radio-carbon dating, which is said to be between 16th century and the mid-17th century. Aside from the idea that these dates go back to the said timeframes, and that Spanish colonizers were in the region sometime during this period, no evidence had been presented whatsoever on the idea of these remains being those of slaves. Is it "possible" they were slaves? Yes. Is it conclusive that they were? Absolutely not!
I know that this is extremely long but in regards to one of the points that you made which was a very good one:
Supercar quote:
"Could the Egyptians have got it from a third party trader, that didn't necessarily come from the "New World"? If so, have those potential parties of 'antiquity' been investigated?"
Yes this is a strong possiblity but what the author was trying to point out if I'm not mistaken is that Central and South America pyramids and some of the religious belief are very similar to each other. The author was stating that Tutankhamun teaching was brought to the Americas and the Mayans taught the teaching of Tutankhamun in the personage of Quetzalcoatl.
The very next sentence states in the book:
The legend of the feathered snake, together with the super-science which it represented, could have accompanied the transfer of these goods. The undisputable fact remains that the bones of a man, known as the feathered snake to his people, portrayed as a figurine of a bearded white man, who left his knowledge in the form of living miracles encoded into his artefacts, have been found in Mexico 2,000 years after the feathered snake, Tutankhamun, walked the banks of the Nile. The man in the tomb in Mexico was the feathered snake; it was not just a tale, not just a story that had crossed an ocean. Theses super-gods taught the same things at different times."
In another setion of the book it goes to say:
"In Egypt the snake and the vulture (feathers) were marks of royalty, representing the divine blood of kings. But only one king, in Egypt, carried both the snake and feathers on his forehead. This was the boy-king Tutankhamun, who, like Lord Pacal, took to the throne at the age of nine...
Compare the decoded picture of Lord Pacal (plate 16a) as a young boy wearing the feathered hat of Quetzalcoatl with the representation of Tutankhamun, from his tomb in the Valley of the Kings. Both the young king and his bride are touhed by the rays of the sun.
As far as the vikings go... I don't really care about this to much... althought the author was trying to make a point I suppect.
Excellent Post... Supercar
Posted by Supercar (Member # 6477) on :
quote:Originally posted by RU2religious:
I know that this is extremely long but in regards to one of the points that you made which was a very good one:
Supercar quote:
"Could the Egyptians have got it from a third party trader, that didn't necessarily come from the "New World"? If so, have those potential parties of 'antiquity' been investigated?"
Yes this is a strong possiblity but what the author was trying to point out if I'm not mistaken is that Central and South America pyramids and some of the religious belief are very similar to each other. The author was stating that Tutankhamun teaching was brought to the Americas and the Mayans taught the teaching of Tutankhamun in the personage of Quetzalcoatl.
The very next sentence states in the book:
The legend of the feathered snake, together with the super-science which it represented, could have accompanied the transfer of these goods. The undisputable fact remains that the bones of a man, known as the feathered snake to his people, portrayed as a figurine of a bearded white man, who left his knowledge in the form of living miracles encoded into his artefacts, have been found in Mexico 2,000 years after the feathered snake, Tutankhamun, walked the banks of the Nile. The man in the tomb in Mexico was the feathered snake; it was not just a tale, not just a story that had crossed an ocean. Theses super-gods taught the same things at different times."
In another setion of the book it goes to say:
"In Egypt the snake and the vulture (feathers) were marks of royalty, representing the divine blood of kings.
But only one king, in Egypt, carried both the snake and feathers on his forehead. This was the boy-king Tutankhamun, who, like Lord Pacal, took to the throne at the age of nine...
Compare the decoded picture of Lord Pacal (plate 16a) as a young boy wearing the feathered hat of Quetzalcoatl with the representation of Tutankhamun, from his tomb in the Valley of the Kings. Both the young king and his bride are touhed by the rays of the sun.
Certainly something that had not been brought to my attention until now. Definitely a possible link that I ought to look into more closely.
quote:RU2religious:
As far as the vikings go... I don't really care about this to much... althought the author was trying to make a point I suppect.
...and yes, that point was not lost on me. I am not too concerned about Viking stories of the "New World" myself, but simply used the author's mentioning of them, to deliver another point that I wanted to make.
Posted by SidiRom (Member # 10364) on :
A fact that was not in dispute. As I even posted Australian people. Nice strawman.
quote:Sidirom seems DESPERATE you are trying too hard, The CANARY CURRENTS brough WEST AFRIKANS to SOUTH AMERICA, only small groups of WEST AFRIKANS came in order to share their knowledge with the Native South Americans.
Nice try. No evidence. Sorry to inform you that accidental migration by fishermen and what not do not result in archeological and writing being taught to another civilization. Your wishful thinking is very entertaining.
quote:The statue of a Elephant is a Elephant it is NOT a possum, or the numerous other pictures you keep showing. Sidirom must be really be DESPERATE. Sidirom the statue looks like a rabbit,frog,or parrot or is it PINK Dumbo the Mastodon reincarnated because you seem to be delusional.
The points you fail to adress,are that just because you claim it is an elephant does not make it so. Two you have provided no evidence that it is even authentic. No other pottery that is similar. No dating, Nothing. Just a picture.
quote:Your losing the debate Sidirom because the Yellow Fever is a mosquito Problem, is Sidirom claiming mosquitoes originated in Afrika?
Again you show your ignorance. Mosquitos transmit the disease from one human host to another. Before African arrivals we did not have human hosts carrying the disease.
quote:The information you supplied was a poor interpretation of the Scientific Data. When they claimed Probably came from Afrika does that mean All AFrikans are immune to Yellow Fever because I can assure you high numbers of native Afrikans die from Yellow Fever also.
No one claimed full immunity. Nice try. But higher levels of resistance yes.
quote:Your losing the debate Sidirom because your being extremely BIASED and we all see it.{/quote]
You caliming you are winning anything without presenting any strong evidence is worhtless.
[quote]Now after you finished reading Ivan Sertima get back to me because I have not even scratched the surface towards PROOF so I will suggest you read Clyde Winters and Ivan Sertima and see if you still disagree.
LOL pick what ever evidence you want from Van Sertima or Clyde Winters. They have all been addressed before.
quote:Australians were located too far versus West Afrikans who are located just 1-2 weeks away due to the Natural CANARY CURRENTS which leads directly from West Afrika to South America.
You must have forgotten a full coastal route. What a moron. I have already shown plenty of other currents have taken accidental travelers to and from the Americans. This is not enough to constitute a population mifration. Nice try.
quote: Locate west Afrika (Home of the Manding) on the map and follow the red line and notice where it leads, If the line leads to South America then Canary Currents leads from West Afrika to South America
And yet they didn't use it because they weren't aware of America. Neither did the Euproeans. Such is life. No current to bring accidental travelers back to tell the tale.
quote:Which specific Oceanic Currents leads Directly from Australia to South America?
More stupidity.
A coastal route around the North Pacific could have led early explorers to lands later submerged when melting glaciers raised sea levels. The possibility of an Ice Age migration directly across the Pacific is widely discounted, but Polynesians certainly had that capability by 500 A.D., when Hawaii and Easter Island were inhabited.
Peñon Woman was found in Baja California as were the last Pericu lived in Columbus'time as well.
When measuring up and comparing the Pericu skulls, the authors discovered that their owners were not a group of Amerinds like most of the Mexican population since prehistoric times. Instead they had distinct and clear affinities to Southeast Asia and the Pacific rim populations. As such, they would seem to represent another Palaeoamerican population that had lived in isolation for a long time and, moreover, one that had managed to survive until very recently.
The chart below shows that the population most closely related to the Pericu (BCS) by skull measurements are the Lagoa Santa people (PAL) - also known as Lapa Vermelha IV or "Luzia's" people - who lived in Minas Gerais near Belo Horizonte in Brazil around 12,500 years ago.
Results of multivariate analysis of Pericu skulls 1: The principal coordinates represent minimum genetic distances (chart adapted from Gonzalez-Jose, R. Gonzalez-Martin A., Hernandez M., Pucciarelli H.M., Sardi M., Rosales A. and Van der Molen S. 2003. "Craniometric Evidence for Palaeoamerican survival in Baja California", Nature, 425:62-65; and Th. D. Dillehay. 2003. "Tracking the first Americans", Nature, 425:23-24. PERICU GROUP (Baja California Sur, Mexico) BCS Fuegians (Tierra del Fuego, Argenina/Chile) FUEG Patagonians (Argentina) PATA Andean Patagonians (Argentina/Chile) APAT Pampas (Buenos Aires, Argenina) PAM Delta of Parana (eastern Argentina) DPAR Aztecs (Mexico) TLAT Bolivians (Bolivia) BOL Toba (northeastern Argentina) TOBA Calchaqui (northwestern Argentina) CAL Palaeoamericans of Brazil ("Luzia" etc.) PAL Teita (Kenya, Africa) TEITA Dogon (Mali, Africa) DOGON Zulu (South Africa) ZULU Bushmen (South Africa) BUSH Australian aborigines (Australia) AUST Tasmanian aborigines (Tasmania, Australia) TASM Tolai (Melanesia) TOLAI Buriats (East Asia) BURIAT Inuit (Eskimo) (Greenland) ESKI Yauyos (Peru) PERU Arikara (USA) ARIK Ainu (Japan) AINU North Japanese (Japan) NJAP South Japanese (Japan) SJAP Hainan (southern China) HAIN Anyang (Taiwan) ANYA Atayal (eastern China) ATAY Santa Cruz (California, USA) SANT
"Early people might have moved south from the Bering Strait by following a chain of small ice-free areas that existed along the outer Pacific coast," Knut Fladmark, a professor of archaeology at Simon Fraser University in British Columbia, told me by e-mail. "Many of those areas would now be underwater."
In 1997, Daryl Fedje, an archaeologist with the Canadian parks system, found a stone tool at a site now 160 feet under water off the coast of British Columbia. The artifact, 10,200 years old, shows that people once lived on that submerged land, Fedje says. Note the northern Jomon. Posted by SidiRom (Member # 10364) on :
quote:Originally posted by rasol: Absolutely right Hotep. And it is also worth noting that some Eurocentrists use those tropical features to define "African" in some sort of racial sense - when it suites their purposes, but then have to abandon the notion when such features and Black peoples turn up all over the ancient world.
Of course you get as close to it as possible by assuming a title "Black People" for people that happen to share certain phenotypes. Such hypocricy. If you are going to claim races, at least be honest about it. I never claim races. just populations by regions.
quote:It's also hypocritical to try to define a tropical disease like Malaria as "African", unless you define the people who carry it - including 100's of millions of Asians and Indians who carry it as also "African."
The disease has its origins in Africa, and thus the title. And the fact is, there is no evidence of Malaria before the arrival of Europeans or Africans. So Africans couldn't have been here before. Your argument is a strawman as well as your purposeful ignoring of the issue of Yellow Fever.
quote:Eurocentric rhetoric is certainly inconsistent, hypocritical and racist, and this is true notwithstanding the issue of hard evidences of West African precense in the America's in pre-Columbian times.
Just like your neo-Afrocentrism disguised as impartialism. I am neither, thank God. having ancestries in all these populations, i could give a damn. But I do like the truth, not robbery of different cultures, for people to feel good about themselves.
Posted by SidiRom (Member # 10364) on :
quote:Originally posted by RU2religious: [QB] I have this book called the Tutankhamun prophecies by Maurice Cotterell
"Clearly, it seems likely that cultural contact across the oceans interfused some of the beliefs and customs between the two civilisations. Recent research from various sources suggests trading links existed between Egypt and Mexico.
Hyperdiffusionists are always amusing in their assumptions that possibility equals occurence. It is also possible that Eskimos could have floated to Europe and made contact, but they didn't.
quote: First, ancient Egyptian tomb paintings, from the time of the fourth dynasty Pharaohs in around 2600 BC, depicts paintings of papyrus reed boats that many believed capable of carrying crews, cargoes and legends from the old world Egypt to the new world of central America. Norwegian explorer Thor Heyerdahl believed these primitive boats could survive transoceanic passages. To prove the point he journeyed to Lake Chad, in the Afrian interior, acquiring the skills to build a boat, along the lines of those in the tomb paintin gs, which would cope with the long sea journey.
A few things need to be mentioned. An accidental crossing has been achieved in many rudimentary boats. But luck has a lot to do with it. You have to know of a destination before planning to go towards it. The Ra berely made it across, with destination known, currents charted and modern communications and navigation equipment aboard that boat. A boat specifically constructed with crossing the Atlantic in mind.
quote: Carried by the trade winds and equatorial currents, Ra covered 3,000 miles {4,830 kilometers} in just under eight weeks.
Carrying food and supplies planned ahead because they knew their destination. Even Columbus, almost starved before getting to the Americas.
quote: But defects in the steering gear and inferior structural techniques used to bind the reeds dogged the voyage. Ra foundered, suffering damage in a Caribbean storm, and sank. Undeterred, Heyerdahl modified the design of his craft, taking note of reed boats built by the Bolivians Peruvians on the shores of Lake Titicaca in South America.
Which means it no longer was a true Egyptian craft, but one made by Bolivians. Techniques that originated in the coast of Peru where they use them to make totora boats that they surf waves with.
quote:Heyerdahl had shown that voyages like this could have been made 3,000 years ago. Coulda woulda. The Chinese were the most advanced sailors in the world at the time of Columbus and had the full capacity to do the crossing, yet they didn't. Possibility does not equal to occurrence.
[quote] Secondly, other evidence likewise supports the notion that trading links between the two coninent of Africa and the Americas were well established during Pharaonic Egypt. In March 1992 German researhers investigating the contents of Egyptian mummies called on the expertise of forensic scientist Dr Svetla Balabanova of the Institute of Forensic Medicine at Ulm.
The first mummy to be tested was nicknamed Het-Nut Tawy, 'Lady of the Two Lnads', an Egyptian mummy of the twenty-first dynasty {around 1069 BC} whose coffin was richly decorated with pictures of the sky-goddess Nut. With great surprise Balabaova discovered the presence of large quantities of nicotine and cocaine in samples of this and serveral other mummies kkept in the Egyptian Museum in Munich.
Again, the assumption is that cocaine and nicotine can only be found in coca and tobacco leaves. An incorrect assumption.
Before the voyages of Christopher Columbus cocaine was not known in the Old World and hashish was not known in the Americas. The identification of cocaine in Egyptian mummies has therefore been interpreted by some as proof that there was pre-Columbian contact between Egypt and South America.
The Evidence
The German research group published their initial findings in 1992. [11] Balabanova, an experienced forensic chemist, used radioimmunoassay and gas chromatography/mass spectrometry {GC/MS} to identify and confirm the presence of cocaine, nicotine and hashish in Egyptian mummies. The remains used in this study included 7 mummified heads {all adults, 2 females, 5 males}, 1 single complete adult female and 1 incomplete adult male. All the mummies tested were from the Egyptian Museum, Munich and they had been dated to a period spanning 1070BC – 395AD. Cocaine and hashish were also found in all 9 samples and nicotine was present in all but one of the samples tested.
In February 1993 the group published a second, more comprehensive, paper on their findings in The Lancet [12]. This included their analysis of 72 Peruvian {200 - 1500AD} and 11 Egyptian {1070BC – 395AD} mummies and also skeletal tissue from the Sudan {2 individuals, 5000 - 4000BC and 400 - 1400AD} and South Germany {10 individuals, 2500BC}.
Their data {Table 1} showed that cocaine, nicotine and hashish could be identified in samples obtained from some, but not all, of the Peruvian and Egyptian mummies that were tested. They also identified nicotine in the bones of both individuals from the Sudan and in 8 out of 10 of the individuals from the German "Bell" culture. The levels of cocaine discovered in the hair of Peruvian mummies were found to be similar to the levels found in modern day German drug addicts and this would indicate that the degradation of the drug does not occur significantly over time. The Egyptian mummies were found to have approximately 75 times less cocaine than the maximal amounts identified in modern day German drug addicts.
The results were published without any interpretation of the data indicating how these drugs came to be present in locations so distant to their natural source. The drug tests had proven positive and so it was up to the wider academic community to make sense of them. Comments and criticisms concerning the data were quickly published in the letters pages of the respective journals. [13 & 14] Understandably the comments focused on the possible interpretations of the evidence and doubts were raised concerning the methods used, the authenticity of the mummies and the possibility of later contamination.
Interpretations
The controversy surrounding the evidence for cocaine in Egyptian mummies led to a Channel 4 {UK} "Equinox" television programme [10] and it has also prompted several speculative articles in magazines and on the internet [15 - 21], most of which have used the evidence for cocaine in Egyptian mummies as the proverbial "smoking gun" that there were ancient trade routes between the Americas and Egypt. After all there are pyramids and hieroglyphs on either side of the Atlantic so it is difficult to comprehend why the experts are so reluctant to accept that trade links were established between these cultures and then lost at a later point in history.
Historians remain entirely unconvinced of ancient trade links between the old and new worlds because none of the principle domestic species {other than the dog} are found in the Americas prior to the arrival of Columbus. Native Americans had no wheat, barley, oats, millet, rice, cattle, pigs, chickens, horses, donkeys or camels whilst new world domesticates such as the llama, guinea pigs, maize, white potatoes, sweet potatoes, peanuts, tomatoes, squash {incl. pumpkin}, pineapples, papaya and avocados were absent from the old world. [23] In addition iron, steel, glass and silk were not used in the Americas prior to 1492. If trade had existed between Egypt and the Americas it would be incredibly unlikely that it would be restricted to plants that produced drugs and not essential food crops and farm animals. Furthermore, the differences between Mayan and Egyptian hieroglyphs and the vast differences in the designs, building materials and purpose of pyramids between Egypt and the Americas indicates that there was not a shared legacy between these cultures.
Academic historians may accept the possibility that a single Roman ship may have become lost in storms and drifted across the Atlantic. [24] However the contention that there were established links between the old and new worlds prior to Columbus is understandably considered absurd.
Even so there must be adequate explanations that can account for the presence of hashish, nicotine and cocaine in the mummies analysed by Dr Svetlana Balabanova that do not depend on the conviction that the ancient Egyptians and Americans traded drugs across the Atlantic. To evaluate this evidence further I contacted Prof. Wolfgang Pirsig and Prof Svetlana Balabanova, Dr Franz Parsche sadly died in an accident in 1995.
What assurances can you give that all the mummies tested for the presence of these drugs were genuine {not fakes}?
Prof. Wolfgang Pirsig: In 1989 I asked Dr. Balabanova whether she could investigate drugs in Egyptian mummies {total cadavers, heads and skulls} of the Mook collection in the Staatssammlung of the University of Munich. The Mook collection was brought to Munich in the late nineteenth century and included remains from Thebes and Abydos. The way of mummification {especially the way of brain removal} showed me that the mummies were genuine. In the Staatssammlung there are around 120 heads and skulls from pre-Colombian Peruvian mummies which were brought to Munich after excavations from 4 cemeteries in the 1930s by members of the Munich University, so that there is no doubt about their genuineness, too. I had studied this material with different questions, one is the deformation of the skull by bandaging in infancy, which was present in about 95% of the skulls, a good evidence for genuineness. Dr. Balabanova had investigated mummies from other areas of the world but I cannot tell you anything about the genuineness of this material.
Dr. Svetlana Balabanova: The source of the artificially mummified bodies from Egypt was the Egyptian Museum in Berlin. The remains of the naturally mummified bodies from Egyptian Nubia were made available to us by Prof. Strouhal, Historical Museum Vienna. Dr Rosalie David has confirmed the authenticity of the mummies.
Is it possible that the presence of these drugs could be explained as intermediary compounds or breakdown products of other common, known biochemicals?
WP: According to my knowledge cocaine, THC and nicotine and their metabolites have their origin only in plants, and there is no way how they can result from other natural processes.
SB: It is not known that cocaine or nicotine can be intermediary compounds or breakdown products.
Is it known whether cocaine, THC and nicotine are stable enough compounds to withstand biochemical or microbial degradation over long periods of time {up to 3,000 years}?
WP: Cocaine has been cultivated in Peru since over 3,000 years. I don’t know how old the oldest known coca-leaves in other museums are. In the Munich collection there is one complete mummy head with a coca-leaves ball in the mouth, from which Dr. Parsche had found cocaine. Quick dehydration of the deceased by whatever method seems to be the best way to enable survival over thousands of years of these drugs which were incorporated in living tissues.
SB: It is not ascertainable if the cocaine and nicotine amounts measured in body tissues and hair represent the original values immediately after death or if the amounts reduced during the centuries. It is also not known if cocaine or nicotine are products of microbial degradation over long periods of time {up to 3,000 years}. However, it is known that burning of incense through reactions of olivetol and verbenol arise THC {D. Martinez et al. "Weihrauch and Myrrhe". WVG, Stuttgart, 1988}.
Do the analytical techniques employed preclude the possibility of misidentification?
SB: The amount of drugs determined by radioimmunoassay is the sum of the drug and its metabolites. However, the proof of a metabolite indicates also the use of the drug. The results of my studies were verified by GC/MS. This method is absolutely specific and precludes misidentification.
How sure can we be that the techniques employed in the identification of these drugs {radioimmunoassay and GC/MS} are reliable and consistent?
WP: The analytic methods of Dr. Balabanova were trained over many years in hair, sweat and dresses of living drug addicts before I brought her the first hairs of Egyptian mummies. Therefore, misinterpretation of her analytical results would appear extremely improbable.
SB: The samples were stored since their excavation under homogenous conditions. The conditions in the laboratory were again homogenous and the samples were simultaneously investigated. Before the investigations, all samples were carefully washed with distilled water and alcohol. The washing water was tested and was cocaine negative. Also all chemicals were cocaine negative. The sample extracts were applied to the GC/MS after it was carefully rinsed with chloroform, until no traces of cocaine or its metabolites were detected any more. If the amount measured were results of contamination, all samples should have been positive. However, only parts were positive.
Is this scientific evidence so watertight that it could withstand legal testimony?
WP: Dr. Balabanovas expertise in analysing drugs in the hair of drug addicts was performed in context with forensic investigations ordered by Justice and the German State without any profit background. Insofar I would term her evidence a legal one.
Can we be certain that these drugs were present at the time of death or is it possible they were introduced into the mummified body either during the embalming process or by later modern contamination?
WP: Some drugs were incorporated during the lifetime, otherwise they cannot be present in the depth of teeth or bones. Some drugs may have contacted the cadaver during the application of some drug containing oil or ointment, which invaded for instance the skin or mucosa. Some drugs in the form of plant leaves or flowers have been added during or after the mummification process {as in the mummy of Ramses II in Paris}. Of course, in our time, the excavator can add nicotine by smoking during his excavating work and scattering the ashes of the cigarette over the mummy {which is very unusual!}, but this nicotine is washed away during the analytic procedures from the hair or bone.
SB: The influence of environmental factors on the substances deposed in the different body tissues post-mortem has not yet been clarified. Ambient moisture, decomposition processes and embalming practice may play a role. We have demonstrated that in artificially mummified bodies from ancient Egypt the nicotine concentrations were significantly higher than those found in the naturally mummified bodies. This indicates that the alkaloid was, possibly, used post-mortem at the embalming procedure. In addition, in the artificially mummified bodies the levels of cotinine, the first nicotine metabolite, were also lower than those measured in naturally mummified bodies. This indicated that nicotine was used ante-mortem and metabolised to cotinine.
Does the analysis of the hair shafts indicate that cocaine, THC and nicotine were consumed over a period of time of the life of particular mummies?
WP: If a drug is inside the hair it has come into the hair during the lifetime. In recent people Dr. Balabanova found a type of timetable according to the intake of the drugs. If the drug addict is clean for a time and then starts again, one can show the interruption in long enough hairs. Due to the small specimens of mummy hair such a timetable could not be shown in the ancient hair.
SB: The presence of drugs in hair demonstrates its use ante-mortem. The drugs are transferred in the hair shafts approximately one month after use. The investigated artificially mummified Egyptians were unfortunately without hair.
The cocaine concentrations found in artificially mummified bodies from Egypt, dated from 1070BC to 395AD, ranged from 24ng/g to 441ng/g. [12] Cocaine was found too in skeletal samples from 71 individuals without traces of artificially embalming procedure, from Egyptian Nubia, dated 600AD to 1100AD. The alkaloid was found in 56 individuals ranged from 0 to 59 years, the highest cocaine values were detected in the group of 1 to 6 year-old children {82ng/g}. Up to the age of 22 years the concentrations decreased to 52ng/g. Then after a new increase up to 67ng/g, at the age of 39 years the cocaine amounts decreased steadily. The highest levels found in the children aged 1 to 6 years suggested that the alkaloid was used as a tranquilliser or may be of maternal origin, too. It is possible, that it was used by the mothers as reinforcer and transferred across the placenta or through the mother’s milk to the infants. To the end of the breast-feed the cocaine amounts decreased. The following increase may be related to the cocaine use as reinforced at the beginning of the working process.
Do these results indicate that these mummies were drug users or that they were an after effect of the embalming process?
WP: The people used drugs by inhaling or chewing before they were mummified, but I cannot exclude the additional invasion of some drugs into the skin of the deceased during the mummification process via some drug containing oil or ointment. We only have sparse information on the mummification process. Herodotus {450BC} only mentioned some details of the mummification techniques, which were poor in Herodotus’ time compared to the techniques and quality of mummification performed thousands of years earlier.
SB: The results indicated that the drugs were used ante, or possibly, post-mortem, in religious rituals, as medication or at the embalming procedure and not as cocaine users.
Have these results been verified by an independent laboratory?
SB: The samples were investigated in my laboratory, by my doctoral candidates and with my apparatus. The GC/MS measurements were performed in the laboratory of the Federal Armed Forces, Munich, Analytical-biochemical laboratory Prof. Adlkofer, Munich, the State criminal office, Stuttgart and by the Children’s Hospital, Ulm.
Are there any plant sources known to have been available to the Ancient Egyptians between 1070BC - 395AD containing nicotine, cocaine, or THC?
WP: For nicotine the two articles of Balabanova contain references of plants containing nicotine in this period, but nobody has proven this exactly with a contemporary map of plants for Egypt.
SB: It is known that cocaine is the principal alkaloid of the leaves of Erythroxylum coca. Cocaine is present also in other Erythroxylum species native to South Africa, Madagascar and Mauritius in amounts less than those found in Erythroxylum coca. However, it is possible that in antiquity a way to concentrate cocaine was known. Professor Michael Montagne reported that South American shamans concentrated nicotine routinely into a thick black syrup. Moreover, it is also possible, that in ancient Egypt, plants containing cocaine were present. Furthermore, it cannot be ruled out that the coca plant was possibly imported to Africa before Columbus. Although trade relations between the New World and Africa are not known, the existence of links between the continents cannot be rejected. The Norwegian anthropologist Thor Heyerdahl crossed the Atlantic in an Egyptian reed boat. Possibly ancient people navigated South American rivers to the Atlantic, crossed the ocean and reached the African continent. Recently a pre-Colombian, earthen Roman head was found in Central America. Recent investigations of a mummy found in Florida, aged 7,000 years, demonstrated identical genotype with those of Asiatic race, but not with those of native Americans {S. Pääbo "Ancient DNA" Scientific American, November 1993: 64}. These facts are possibly also evidence for trans-Atlantic relations.
Is it possible that Ancient Egyptian traders could have obtained any such plants from elsewhere in Africa, the Mediterranean or the Middle East?
WP: Yes, possible, but not proven. Some plants could be imported from Asia.
Is it possible that plants yielding the required amounts of these drugs may have been present in the past and have become extinct?
WP: Yes, the destruction of nature today is the best evidence, and nature had been destroyed also in ancient times.
SB: It is possible that plants containing the alkaloids were present and used in Ancient Egypt.
Are there any plant sources of THC known to have been available in Peru between 200 and 1500AD?
WP: We have not investigated this question.
Do these results support an established trans-Atlantic trading route between Egypt and South America that predates Columbus {1492AD}?
WP: No, this conclusion cannot be made from the Ulm findings.
Could they indicate the possibility of a distant trading route across the Pacific between South America, Asia and Africa?
WP: No, this conclusion cannot be made from the Ulm findings.
Do you favour any particular interpretation of your results?
WP: As the Ulm findings are gained from a few specimens of a few sites in the huge world without other contemporary background information I don’t dare to interpret them in any particular cultural context.
Sources of Cannabis
The discovery of THC in Egyptian mummies is not surprising considering that cannabis is indigenous to the Middle East. There is general consensus that the Ancient Egyptian word "shemshemet" means cannabis. There is also cited evidence of cannabis use in the pyramid texts and cannabis is thought to have been used as a drug since pharaonic times. [25] Hemp has been found in the tomb of Amenophis III {1382 - 1344BC} and cannabis pollen has also been identified on the mummy of Ramses II {1279 - 1213BC}. [13 & 25]
Sources of Nicotine
Whilst nicotine is an abundant alkaloid in tobacco plants {Nicotiana tabacum} it is also present in relatively small amounts in some Old World plants including Belladonna {Atropa bella-donna}, Celery {Apium graveolens} and Jimsonweed {Datum stramonium}. [26] Nicotine and its metabolites have also been identified in human remains and in pipes from the Near East and Africa. However the only direct evidence of habitual tobacco use in the Ancient world has been found in the Americas. [6]
Balabanova has reviewed early evidence for the origins of tobacco in Europe and Asia prior to Columbus’ voyages to the Americas. [27] Pre-Christian pipes made from clay, wood, bronze and iron have been found in Switzerland, France and Germany. "Bauerntabak", literally farmers tobacco, was described in several European herbals written in the sixteenth century and was classified, along with Nicotiana tabacum as either a type of “bilsenkraut” or as a kind of Hyoscyamus. From the seventeenth century farmers tobacco became known as Nicotiana rustica and was erroneously accepted as being of American origin when wild and domesticated varieties were already known in Europe prior to Columbus. Farmers tobacco may have had Asiatic origins, Conrad Gesner considered in 1561 that it had been imported from Syria and it has also been maintained that the Persians were also aware of this type of tobacco. Nicotiana fruticosa is also known to grow in regions of China, where it was domesticated and was known by its Chinese names “cay-thüóc-än” and “yen-yé”.
Additionally a species of tobacco, Nicotiana africana, has recently been identified as indigenous to Namibia in South West Africa. It is therefore not unreasonable to suspect that other species of tobacco may have grown in Egypt, or in the surrounding regions, and that this could account for the high amounts of nicotine identified in these Egyptian mummies.
Another possibility is that the presence of nicotine and the traces of tobacco leaves found in Ramses II mummy may have resulted from the use of tobacco sprays as an insecticide to conserve the mummies whilst they were stored in museums in the nineteenth century. [28] Mummies are prone to insect infestation following entombment or exhumation and museums continue to wage war against insect pests. In recent investigations at least three different species of beetle including Thylodrias contractus Mots, Tyrophagus sp. and Lassioderma serricorne {F.} have been identified from the mummy of Ramses II. Most speculation has centred on L. serricorne due to its common name, the tobacco beetle. This species was first recorded in the U.S.A. in 1886 but has several similar forms in the Old World and it is also often found as a pest in museum collections.
Tobacco has been used as an insecticide in Europe since 1763 and so it would not have been unusual for it to have been applied to the mummy of Ramses II for conservation. The mummy of Ramses II was subjected to a mercury bath to de-louse it whilst it was kept in the Cairo museum. [28] The preparation of the mummy began by “washing with a decoction of tobacco-leaves in a strong lye”. Mummies are also often moved around between museums and other storage locations where contamination may occur. So even though the post excavation history of a mummy may appear well documented this has not always been the case.
Although there is good evidence to indicate that nicotine may have been identified in mummies following its application as an insecticide there is an alternative explanation which Balabanova favours. This is that the origin of the nicotine is the result of a post mortem application to the mummy, which may have occurred during the process of embalming. [29] In this study Balabanova compared the amounts of nicotine identified in artificially and naturally mummified bodies from ancient Egypt with the amounts found in modern-day humans. The highest nicotine concentrations were found in artificially mummified Egyptians {mean value = 1330ng/g} compared with 47ng/g in natural mummies, 77ng/g in European bronze age remains and 38ng/g in modern day accident victims. However the ratio of nicotine to its metabolised component cotinine indicates that the high concentrations of nicotine in artificial mummies is due to the embalming process. Artificially mummified bodies contain on average 3.4% cotinine compared to 40.3% in natural mummified bodies, 34.3% in European bronze age remains and 596% in modern day accident victims. This is indicative that the nicotine in the artificial mummies was not through its consumption whilst they were alive but through its post mortem application.
Nicotine has a half-life in the human body of 1 - 3 hours, its co-metabolite, cotinine, has a half-life of 8 - 10 hours. [30] Cotinine is produced in vivo and is indicative of the presence of nicotine in living tissue. Of 144 individuals tested by radioimmunoassay 140 {97%} were positive for cotinine. However, due to the presence of nicotine in many common plants and vegetables their dietary contribution must be taken into account. A cut off value of 0.4ng/mg cotinine is commonly used to distinguish between modern day smokers and non-smokers. As the nicotine level of native tobacco is up to 4 times higher than modern commercial brands Cartmell et al [30] chose to use a higher cut off value of 2ng/mg cotinine, this indicated that 67 samples {47%} were due to tobacco use.
Sources of Cocaine
The first ever identification of cocaine in mummified remains came in 1991 and was made by Dr Larry Cartmell. [31] From the 8 mummies tested {all from South America}, 4 samples from the Chinchorro culture, a coastal people unlikely to have had access to coca leaf, and 2 samples from sub adult mummies from the Azapa valley near Arica were negative for the presence of cocaine. The 2 samples that tested positive for cocaine were from the Camarones Valley in Northern Chile. One sample was from a 25 year-old woman and the other a 3 year-old boy. It is supposed that the boy acquired the cocaine from his mother’s milk or as a medicine.
The use of coca leaf was restricted during the reign of Inca Roca ca. 1230AD although the farming of coca did not come under state control for another two hundred years. [32] By this time the plant had acquired a revered status and was utilised in religious ceremonies. The use of coca was spread from royalty to the nobility and lower classes up until the Spanish conquest when coca was used by all but the lowest class in Inca culture. Following the conquest of the Inca Empire coca-leaf chewing became further widespread to alleviate the fatigue and hunger felt by the common people and these remain the main reasons for the continued popularity of the habit. The history of coca use prior to the time of the Inca is not so well understood but it can be studied by analysing mummies and artefacts obtained from archaeological sites.
In modern times typically 20 - 60g coca leaf may be consumed per day equating to 200 - 300mg cocaine. These amounts approach the lower levels of cocaine found in cocaine addicts. Cocaine typically has a half-life in the human body measurable in minutes. However benzoylecgonine {BZE}, a metabolite of cocaine, can be detected in hair shafts using the techniques of radioimmunoassay and GC/MS. Using these methods Cartmell investigated 163 mummies from 7 different cultures from Chile which spanned a period of 4,000 years. [32] A conservative value of 5ng/mg was employed to differentiate between positive and negative cocaine results as this value is used in clinical studies.
Of the 23 individuals from the Chinchorro culture {samples dated from 3000 – 2000BC} and 3 individuals from Quiani culture {1500 – 1250BC} none were positive for BZE. However Cartmell identified one individual from the Alto Ramirez {350 - 250BC}, 10 from Cabuza {400 - 1000AD}, 54 from Maitas Chiribaya {1100 – 1250AD}, 2 from San Miguel {1200 – 1350AD} and 9 from “Inca” {1400 – 1500AD} cultures.
The earliest archaeological evidence indicates that coca use started with the Valdivia culture in Ecuador ca 2100BC from where its use spread southwards. The BZE tests indicate that the Chinchorro culture did not consume coca leaf. Coca was grown in northern Peru ca 2100BC but there is little reason to suppose that the Chinchorro traded with their Peruvian neighbours. However the results indicated that some coca use was practised 2,000 years ago.
The methods by which drugs enter the hair shaft are still not fully understood. It is possible that drugs may be transferred to the hair via the follicle, in sweat, from the sebaceous glands or across the skin. Drugs may enter the hair shaft after passing from arterial capillaries to the matrix cells in the base of the hair follicle. As these cells move along the shaft they die and become incorporated in the keratin. [33] Cocaine and its metabolites; ecgonine and BZE have been identified in sweat up to 48 hours after ingestion. It is therefore possible that cocaine excreted in sweat could be transferred to the hair. Cocaine has also been detected in drug free hair that was held tightly in the palm of a hand of a cocaine-dosed individual for 30 minutes thus indicating that the drug can enter the hair shaft without it having been consumed by the bearer of the hair.
One problem with using hair tests to confirm the presence of drugs is that of external contamination. [33] Smoke has been known to contaminate hair with both cocaine and nicotine giving false positive results. Ante mortem contamination may result from smoke or an external application {for example medicinal or ceremonial}. Post mortem contamination could result during the funeral process, through the use of embalming fluids, via contamination during the period of burial, due to leaching from grave goods, during post excavation and curation processes, as a result of tobacco use by staff or during post excavation storage. External contamination can however be checked by testing the rinse washes of hair material for the presence of drugs.
Cartmell et al have tested 18 mummies excavated from the Egyptian oasis of Dakhleh in the western Sahara for the presence of cocaine and nicotine. [34] All samples were negative for cocaine, whilst 14 individuals tested positive for nicotine. The positive nicotine values ranged from 0.7 – 2.2ng/mg of hair and were therefore considered to be consistent with dietary sources of nicotine, for which a cut off value of 2ng/mg is commonly used.
Cartmell has approached Balabanova in an attempt to replicate her results in his own laboratory but according to Balabanova this request did not reach her. [34] It is important at this point to note that Balabanova's data is recorded in ng/g {nanograms per gram} whereas Cartmell records his data in ng/mg {nanograms per milligram} ie a difference of 1,000-fold. Balabanova's cocaine data from Egyptian mummies equates to maximal levels of less than 0.5ng/mg and the maximal amounts of nicotine are less than 1.05ng/mg. Both values would therefore prove negative using modern thresholds for drug testing. In addition it is apparent that the values for nicotine determined by Balabanova would also fall within the dietary limits {< 2ng/mg} imposed by Cartmell.
Cocaine is produced in quantity exclusively by Erythroxylum species native to South America [8 & 35 - 37]. However the genus Erythroxylon contains over 200 species distributed throughout the tropics including the Americas, Asia, South Africa, Madagascar and Australia. Some of these species produce cocaine although in much smaller amounts than in the South American species. [38 - 42] E. brownianum for instance is a species native to South Africa which produces 400ppm {parts per million – equivalent to 0.4mg/g} cocaine in its leaves. [40] E. monogynum, red cedar, is native to India and contains up to 400ppm cocaine in its roots. [40] The shoots and leaves from this plant are also edible. It is possible that the Ancient Egyptians could have had access to these species of plant or even that there were related species present in Egypt that produced cocaine in sufficient quantity to account for the amounts identified.
The constituents of the embalming oils used by the Ancient Egyptian embalmers have not been recorded in their texts. However, Herodotus {writing in the fifth century BC} recorded the materials and various treatments used during that time. Embalmers had learned through experience that the human body could be preserved by removing the internal organs {intestines, liver, lungs and stomach} and by applying salts, resins, cedar oil, palm wine, myrrh, cassia, gum, honey and bitumen. [43]
Buckley and Evershed [44] have investigated the constituents of balms used on Egyptian mummies {1900BC – 395AD} using GC/MS. The main constituents of which were acyl lipids, which are most likely from plant oils as their constituent fatty acid composition indicates {there is a greater prevalence of palmitate as opposed to stearate}. The use of unsaturated oils enabled the embalmers to dry or rather spontaneously polymerise their remains, this property was also utilised by European oil painters. This helped to protect the wrappings against microbial invasion. Coniferous resins were identified by the presence of diterpenoid components and although used as early as 2200BC their use became more common during the Roman period. Beeswax has been identified by the presence of alkanes {C25 - C33}, wax esters {C40 - C50} and hydroxy wax esters {C42 - C54} and was used in increasing amounts from ca. 1000BC until the Roman era. Beeswax was presumably chosen for its sealant and anti-microbial properties as well as its symbolic significance. It is also worth noting that the Coptic word for wax is ‘mum’. In addition balsmic resin, bitumen, pistacia/triterpenoid resin and plant oils were also identified as constituent components in the mummies examined. It is apparent that we still do not know all there is to know about Egyptian mummification and caution should be exercised before making assumptions as to the art of the embalmers.
Herodotus recorded the earliest circumnavigation of Africa, which was achieved by Phoenician sailors. [45] They had been commissioned by the Egyptian Pharaoh Necho II {ca 615 - 595BC} to sail from the Red Sea down the eastern coast of Africa and to determine whether Africa was surrounded by sea. They achieved their task in three years returning via the Pillars of Hercules. However Herodotus refused to believe their claims as they had stated that the sun was on their right hand side as they sailed round the southern coast. This statement made by the Phoenicians is now considered to be proof of the veracity of their voyage.
Lapis lazuli, which comes from the mountains of Badakshan in Afganistan was found by Flinders Petrie in some early Naqada II tombs {ca 3500BC}. Imports of lapis lazuli indicate that Ancient Egyptian trading extended at least as far as Afghanistan and that trade routes crossed land and ocean via the Persian Gulf to Sumer. [46]
Evidence of direct trade between India and Egypt prior to the Roman era is mostly speculative. However the Romans developed important trade relations with India following the incorporation of Egypt in their Empire. This enabled them to use Egypt as an important intermediary to facilitate trade across the Indian Ocean. [47 & 48] Berenike, 500 miles south of Suez, became established as an important harbour for Roman trade with India and archaeological evidence indicates that the site was used between the third century BC and sixth century AD. [49] Prior to the establishment of this port and the utilisation by the Romans of a sea route to India their trade had passed overland through modern day Syria and Turkey.
There is sufficient evidence therefore to indicate that the ancient Egyptians could have obtained plants, spices or timber from locations as far afield as India, Afghanistan and the coasts of Africa.
Discussion
To summarise there are a number of explanations which may account for the identification of cocaine, THC and nicotine in Egyptian mummies. The identification of THC is not considered unusual due to the local prevalence of C. sativa in the Middle East. In addition we know that the Egyptians utilised hemp to make ropes and THC can also be produced by reactions that occur when burning incense.
The presence of nicotine can be accounted for, as nicotine is present in small amounts in many plants commonly used as food. It is therefore fairly common for human remains to contain residual amounts of nicotine. The use of tobacco based insecticide sprays during the nineteenth century may account for the discovery of tobacco leaves in the mummy of Ramses II as well as for the identification of higher levels of nicotine in mummies that have been kept in museums over long periods of time. Amongst the resins and plant oils used by Ancient Egyptian embalmers there may have been plants, which contained significant amounts of nicotine. This contention is supported by Balabanova's discovery that the proportion of cotinine to nicotine in artificially mummified Egyptian remains is significantly less {3.4% vs 40.3%} than in naturally mummified remains. [29]
The discovery of cocaine in Egyptian mummies is however not so easy to account for as no direct evidence unequivocally supports any particular contention. Although it is possible that experimental error or modern fake mummies could account for these results both of these explanations are highly unlikely. The authenticity of the mummies has been confirmed by independent experts, the methods employed by Balabanova are reliable and are also used by forensic departments around the world. In addition Balabanova's results were confirmed by GC/MS at four different laboratories.
However, there is no reason to suppose that the cocaine identified by Balabanova in Egyptian mummies originated in South America because there are cocaine producing Erythroxylum species, which are indigenous to regions of Africa, India and Asia. The hypothesis that trade routes existed between Egypt and South America simply cannot be substantiated with any corroborative evidence and it would be incredibly unlikely that if links had existed that trade would have been restricted to plants that could be used as drugs. Furthermore, the use of such drugs by indigenous cultures is often associated with their religious beliefs and drugs are often revered as gifts from the gods. It would therefore be unusual for a culture to use particular drugs and to not make reference to their effects in their texts and legends.
It is certainly feasible that plants containing cocaine were present in Ancient Egypt as there are examples of flora known to have grown there which subsequently became extinct, although some have been reintroduced. These include: both the blue and white water lilies, the "Ished" Tree {modern persea}; a sacred tree on whose leaves the name of Pharaoh was inscribed to guarantee him a long life, the carob {Ceratonia siliqua}, the Christ's Thorn {Ziziphus spina} and the Stone Pine {Pinus pinea}. If the heraldic flower of the South was a real plant {and some believe that it was invented}, the most likely candidate is the so-called Madonna lily {Lilium candidum}.
Cocaine containing plants, such as E. monogynum, which is present in India, could have been acquired by the ancient Egyptians or in neighbouring areas which the Egyptians traded with.
A hypothesis can be proposed whereby cocaine containing plants could have been utilised by the ancient Egyptians when preparing their embalming oils, constituents from these oils could have permeated muscle tissue and hair over long periods of time and thus account for their detection by highly sensitive modern techniques. This hypothesis could be examined by applying plant oils and resins, containing cocaine and nicotine, to drug free hair and then subjecting the hair samples to drug tests. The isotopic signatures of the drugs may be used to determine their geographical origin. [51] However, it would require permission from the Munich museum to obtain additional samples from their mummies for analysis and there would surely be complications arising from testing and comparing the small amounts that could be derived from human remains with relatively pure modern plant samples.
Most importantly it's been noted that the identification of cocaine in Egyptian mummies needs to be verified by researchers from an independent laboratory. [52] The only Egyptian mummies to have tested positive for cocaine originate from the Munich museum and these samples all passed through Balabanova's laboratory. Whilst it is unlikely, the possibility exists that some of these samples were incorrectly labelled. Unlikely as this may be, such a mislabelling occurred in the UK with samples of cows and sheep brains becoming mixed up resulting in dire consequences for BSE research. It is therefore important that for the identification of cocaine in Egyptian mummies to become accepted that fresh samples from the Munich museum be acquired and tested by an independent laboratory. Until this occurs the possibility of contamination, mislabelling or misidentification of cocaine from these samples remains.
quote: The diffusion of trade could also have occurred from the Americas westwards across the Pacifi. The sweet potato is known to have crossed the Pacific in early times, as did the peanut, which surfaced in western China and pure silk from China is known to have been used in Egypt as early as 1000 BC.
Yes the sweet potato is a mystery. The question would be if any Polynesian staples made it to the Americas.We do know that Polynesians acquired the crops somewhere around 300 to 700 AD. What does this have to do with West Africa? http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/h2g2/A1984421 Penuts do not show up in Africa until the Portuguese introduce them.
quote: On balance, it seems clear that world trade facilitated the transportation of tobacco and cocaine from the Americas to Egypt either westwards or eastwards prior to 1000 BC." So in essence it seems to me that a pretty firm argument has been made in this case.
Still wishful thinking.
Posted by SidiRom (Member # 10364) on :
quote:Originally posted by Supercar: I note that, all that these folks have as evidence, are skeletal remains that they identified as "Africans", for reasons stated. They claim in an unequivocal manner, that these must have been slaves from Africa during the Spanish colonization of the region, because of the dates indicated by radio-carbon dating, which is said to be between 16th century and the mid-17th century. Aside from the idea that these dates go back to the said timeframes, and that Spanish colonizers were in the region sometime during this period, no evidence had been presented whatsoever on the idea of these remains being those of slaves. Is it "possible" they were slaves? Yes. Is it conclusive that they were? Absolutely not!
But unless you can find skeletal remains from before the slavery period. Then chancves are they didn't just magically appear, and they came or around the time of the colonizers.
Posted by SidiRom (Member # 10364) on :
quote:Originally posted by RU2religious: Discovery of Norse settlements in Newfoundland in 1965 proved that Vikings had sailed the Atlantic, settling in Newfoundland in around AD 1000, meaning that other, similar voyages could well have been made earlier.
possibility does not mean occurence.
quote:I look at claims of Viking landings in the "New World" in pre-columbian times, with as much critical eye, as I do with the quite possible pre-columbian African landings in the "New World". Have biological remains of Vikings been positively and irrefutably identified and traced back to pre-columbian times? What are the nature of these settlements such that, it cannot be explained in any other way, but only by the presence of accidental European sea travellers? How did the native Americans deal with these foreigners? Did the Vikings make it back, and were they organized enough to leave details/records of such trips back to Europe?
quote:I know that this is extremely long but in regards to one of the points that you made which was a very good one:
Supercar quote:
"Could the Egyptians have got it from a third party trader, that didn't necessarily come from the "New World"? If so, have those potential parties of 'antiquity' been investigated?"
Yes this is a strong possiblity but what the author was trying to point out if I'm not mistaken is that Central and South America pyramids and some of the religious belief are very similar to each other. The author was stating that Tutankhamun teaching was brought to the Americas and the Mayans taught the teaching of Tutankhamun in the personage of Quetzalcoatl.[quote]
What Tutankhamon teachings?Tutankamon did not really teach anything out of the ordinary.
[quote]The legend of the feathered snake, together with the super-science which it represented, could have accompanied the transfer of these goods. The undisputable fact remains that the bones of a man, known as the feathered snake to his people, portrayed as a figurine of a bearded white man, who left his knowledge in the form of living miracles encoded into his artefacts, have been found in Mexico 2,000 years after the feathered snake, Tutankhamun, walked the banks of the Nile.
This is an entertaining claim, but where is the vidence. And since when was Tutankhamon a bearded white man?
quote: The man in the tomb in Mexico was the feathered snake; it was not just a tale, not just a story that had crossed an ocean. Theses super-gods taught the same things at different times."
Evidence please.
"In Egypt the snake and the vulture (feathers) were marks of royalty, representing the divine blood of kings. But only one king, in Egypt, carried both the snake and feathers on his forehead. This was the boy-king Tutankhamun, who, like Lord Pacal, took to the throne at the age of nine...
All Pharaohs wore the double-crown that meant just that. Tut's crown was just another variation of the same theme.
quote:Compare the decoded picture of Lord Pacal (plate 16a) as a young boy wearing the feathered hat of Quetzalcoatl with the representation of Tutankhamun, from his tomb in the Valley of the Kings. Both the young king and his bride are touhed by the rays of the sun.
Far fetched comparison. One is a feathered serpent the other are two different animals. And rays around divinity is quite normal
Posted by Supercar (Member # 6477) on :
quote:Originally posted by SidiRom: But unless you can find skeletal remains from before the slavery period. Then chancves are they didn't just magically appear, and they came or around the time of the colonizers.
"Chances", as you like to put it, doesn't make it absolute. What concrete evidence is there, to suggest that these remains are undeniably those of slaves, other than speculations based on radio-carbon dating and the idea that Spanish colonizers were in the region around the said period, and eventually imported slaves from Africa into the region?
Posted by SidiRom (Member # 10364) on :
quote:Originally posted by Supercar:
quote:Originally posted by SidiRom: But unless you can find skeletal remains from before the slavery period. Then chancves are they didn't just magically appear, and they came or around the time of the colonizers.
"Chances", as you like to put it, doesn't make it absolute. What concrete evidence is there, to suggest that these remains are undeniably those of slaves, other than speculations based on radio-carbon dating and the idea that Spanish colonizers were in the region around the said period, and eventually imported slaves from Africa into the region?
Occam's Razor. If no evidence of their presence prior to Colonialists, and We know Africans were there as soon as Colonialists arrived. Then thi higher probability is they came with the Colonialists. A second possibility is that they were freemen from a shipwrecked African corsair. But it would still be around that time. Nothing to do with olmecs or what not. Like I said, I am not against accidental voyagers. But technology transfer and higher knowledge usually doesn't occur on first contact between sailors. Except for knowledge sailors would have of weaponry and ship sailing. Not enough to influence the fromation of major civilizations. Most sailors that would be caught unprepared in a current probably weren't even literate. Other possibilites are revolts on slave ships,like the one that Cinque took over. Many slaves who fought for their freedom may have landed on these shores unknown. Plenty of possibilities WITHIN THAT TIME PERIOD.
Posted by Supercar (Member # 6477) on :
quote:Originally posted by SidiRom: Occam's Razor. If no evidence of their presence prior to Colonialists
...i.e., archeology of skeletal remains claimed to be most likely those of Africans, YET! But you have to bear in mind, that there was a time, when these finds weren't uncovered by those anthropologists.
quote:SidiRom: , and We know Africans were there as soon as Colonialists arrived. Then thi higher probability is they came with the Colonialists.
Well, the 'probability' is there, based on what I mentioned earlier, but it doesn't preclude the probability that the remains aren't those of slaves.
quote:SidiRom: A second possibility is that they were freemen from a shipwrecked African corsair.
What can be deduced from the remains with any degree of certainity, is that Africans were most definitely in the region by the period in question.
quote:SidiRom: But it would still be around that time. Nothing to do with olmecs or what not. Like I said, I am not against accidental voyagers. But technology transfer and higher knowledge usually doesn't occur on first contact between sailors. Except for knowledge sailors would have of weaponry and ship sailing. Not enough to influence the fromation of major civilizations.
Most sailors that would be caught unprepared in a current probably weren't even literate. Other possibilites are revolts on slave ships,like the one that Cinque took over. Many slaves who fought for their freedom may have landed on these shores unknown. Plenty of possibilities WITHIN THAT TIME PERIOD
I'm of the opinion, that cultural diffusion is a harder sell, and hence, demands more compelling corroboration. People can make accidental discoveries, just based on curiousity and exploratory expeditions. But this would have to have been planned ahead, meaning that, at least basic necessities such as food and water, would be taken into consideration. Taking some weaponry, might be secondary options. Such expeditions would likely involve at least a few literate individuals, to be accompanied by others. The expeditions may not always necessarily be successful, based on technological level that was available at the time, and the travellers may not be able to return to their point of origin. In such a senario, either the travellers would perish in the midst of the sea journey, or land in the nearest landmark, and make the best of the situation. It is likely though, such planned missions, would be followed by successive missions to rescue the lost expeditionary team, or else, to take up the task from where the lost team left off. In any case, there is likely to be some trail of evidence or substantiation for such planned trips, which would likely be sponsored or authorized by a governing body. Given the ancients, it isn't out of question that unofficial sailors, both literate and illiterate, could accidentally wind up somewhere, and unable to return.
Writing and other innovations usually start with few individuals, and based on necessity, the practice gradually spreads to the greater community. So a few individual, or even one person's idea, can have significant impact on the larger community. So for me, that isn't an issue, but the providing well thought out details, even if on a bit by bit basis, such that when tested against other pieces of information, will make a compelling case.
Posted by Clyde Winters (Member # 10129) on :
supercar quote: ____________________________________________________________________ What Mr. Winters fails to recognize, is that had he simply called Blacks natives of regions outside Africa as "Blacks", not Africans, he wouldn't be running into the kinds of questioning he has thus far been receiving. But as we can see, Mr. Winters seems to be equating "Blacks" with Africans, and hence, his reference to "African skeletons" among the Olmecs. This issue has nothing to do with "Blacks" creating civilizations outside Africa, but discerning whom you can call "African" and whom it doesn't make sense to, unless members of the said "Non-African" Blacks so choose to do so...in which case, that would be the subjective choice of the said individuals. However, "objectively" Blacks natives anywhere cannot simply be called Africans if not for geographical, political and cultural reasons, but for biological reasons. You simply cannot use "Africans" interchangeably with "Blacks" just about anywhere [outside Africa] there are native Black folks for obvious reasons. I suspect that this is what drives Mr. Winters to push for "recent" African links. _____________________________________________________________________
Here you are wrong. I am a Black American. As a group we identify ourselves as African American. If we can call ourselves African American, and be considered Black, there is nothing wrong with considering the Olmecs, who were Blacks African because they originally came from Africa and were not native to America. Moreover, the Olmec name for themselves: Xi, means ‘black’.
The original Olmec lived in the Sahara-Sahel region. As the Sahara became more arid they were forced to seek new homes. Around this time Tichitt was heavily populated so the Proto-Olmecs probably were forced to seek homes further West.
At this time the Niger extended into the Sahara, and emptied in the Atlantic. Lakes and rivers dotted Middle Africa 4000 years ago. The rock art makes it clear the people living in the Sahara had extensive knowledge of navigation and boat building.
The Proto-Olmec could not settle along the Niger river, because it was heavily forested and offered any colonist in the area the possibility of dying due to sleeping sickness. As a result they probably moved westward until they entered the Atlantic. By avoiding heavily forested areas that were centers of diseases---allowed the Proto-Olmec or Xi people, to arrive in Mexico free of diseases . This is why these Africans did not spread epidemics, like the Europeanes devastated Native Americans.
Ancient Africans probably navigated their ships by the stars. We know they probably made maps of their voyage to Mexico, because they took back to Africa, maize . Jeffreys presents an abundance of evidence that Africans in West Africa were already being cultivated when the Portuguese arrived in West Africa. His research indicated that cultivation of maize moved from west to east.
The Olmec were predominately farmers, miners and craftsmen. According to Philip J. Arnold III, in Olmec Art and Archaeology in Meso America ,edited by Clark and Pye, it is clear from the archaeological evidence that while the Gulf Olmecs practiced a sedentary maize based society, most of the other people living in Veracruz, like the people in the Tuxtlas, were mobile people who practiced fishing, hunting and collecting as their method of subsistence.
The main group responsible for the production of stela and statues were the Fa. The Fa, often served as Governors, they also officiated at religious ceremonies and were responsible for acculturating the Olmec children to Olmec society.
The Olmec did not need Amerinds to sculpt their monuments. They brought craftsmen with them when they settled Mexico.
To sculpt the monuments the Olmec craftsmen used wooden millets, chisels and a variety of stone tools, stone axes, hammer stones and sandstone saws to flake and grind local basalt. Archaeologists believe the Olmec used many carvable boulders from Tustla foothills to make their stela and statues.
In Saharan Africa greenstones have been found on many habitation sites. In Mexico the Olmec continued the practice of working green stone to make tools.
The Olmec also worked metals.Richard A. Diehl, in [ B][I]The Olmecs: Americas First Civilization [/B][I/] wrote that Pierre Agrinnier has found native iron ore deposits, iron ore mirrors. He also found a workshop littered with thousands of broken or partially worked ilmenite and magnelite blocks, chert drills. Other Olmec mining outpost have been found throughout the Olmec area.
The Olmec introduced pyramid building, green stone working, advanced engineering knowledge as illustrated by the aqueducts and isotes (small artificial islands built above the annual flood zones) they built at many Olmec sites. Overtime we see the local Amerindians begin to use Olmec style pottery and green stone celts and tools.
This highlights the commercial and political power the African Olmecs exercised in Mexico. Soon we see many of the earlier Black groups belonging to the Mokaya tradition, begin to adopt Olmec culture. Members of Wiercinski’s SubPacific group characterized by the Las Bolas also became members of the Olmec confederation.
The commercialism, science and technology of the Blacks of Olmecland, has led many researchers to declare the Olmecs as the ‘Mother Culture’ of Mexico. These Black Africans spread Mande civilization throughout Mexico. Since they were from Africa and they were Black , there is nothing wrong with calling these people African because they were not descendants of the original Blacks who settled many parts of the Americas 40,000ybp.
Posted by zulu (Member # 7122) on :
AL-ISLAAH PUBLICATIONSLotus Word Pro 97 Document HOME
Islam in America Islam in China | Islam in Malaysia | Islam in the USSR | Present situation of Soviet Muslims | Islam in Albania | Islam in Bosnia & Herzegovina | Islam in Africa | Islam in West Africa | Islam in America | Islam in Japan __________________________________________ Islam in the World Islam in America MUSLIMS IN THE AMERICAS BEFORE COLUMBUS by Dr. Youssef Mroueh
Introduction Numerous evidence suggests that Muslims from Spain and West Africa arrived in the Americas at least five centuries before Co1umbus. It is recorded, for example that in the mid-tenth century during the rule of the Umayed Caliph Abdul-Rahman III (929-961), Muslims of African origin sailed westward from the Spanish port of Delba (Palos) into the “Ocean of darkness an fog.” They returned after a long absence with much booty from a “strange and curious land.” It is evident that people of Muslim origin are known to have accompanied Columbus and subsequent Spanish explorers to the New World. The last Muslim stronghold in Spain, Granada, fell to the Christians in 1492 CE, just before the Spanish inquisition was launched. To escape persecution, many non-Christians fled or embraced Catholicism. At least two documents imply the presence of Muslims in Spanish America before 1550 CE. Despite the fact that a decree issued in 1539 CE, by Charles V, King of Spain, forbade the grandsons of Muslims who had been burned at the stake to migrate to the West Indies. This decree was ratified in 1543 CE, and an order for the expulsion of all Muslims from overseas Spanish territories was subsequently published. Many references on the Muslim arrival in the Americas are available. They are summarized in the following notes:
Historic Documents l. A Muslim historian and geographer Abul-Hassan Ali Ibn Al-Hussain Al-Masudi (871 - 957 CE) wrote in his book ‘Muruj Adh-dhahab wa Maadin al-Jawhar’ (The Meadows of Gold and Quarries of Jewels) that during the rule of the Muslim Caliph of Spain Abdullah Ibn Muhammad (888 - 912 CE), a Muslim navigator Khashkhash Ibn Saeed Ibn Aswad of Cordoba, Spain sailed from Delba (Palos) in 889 CE, crossed the Atlantic, reached an unknown territory (Ard Majhoola) and returned with fabulous treasures. In Al-Masudi's map of the world there is a large area in the ocean of darkness and fog (the Atlantic ocean) which he referred to as the unknown territory (the Americas). 2. A Muslim historian Abu Bakr Ibn Umar Al-Gutiyya narrated that during the reign of the Muslim Caliph of Spain, Hisham II (976 -1009 CE), another Muslim navigator Ibn Farrukh of Granada sailed from Kadesh (February 999 CE) into the Atlantic, landed in Gando (Great Canary Islands) visiting King Guanariga, and continued westward where he saw and named two islands, Capraria and Pluitana. He arrived back in Spain in May 999 CE. 3. Columbus sailed from Palos (Delba), Spain. He was bound for Gomera (Canary Islands) - Gomera is an Arabic word meaning ‘small firebrand’ - there he fell in love with Beatriz Bobadilla, daughter of the first captain General of the island (the family name Bobadilla is derived from the Arab Islamic name Abouabdilla). Nevertheless, the Bobadilla clan was not easy to ignore. Another Bobadilla (Francisco), later as the royal commissioner, put Columbus in chains and transferred him from Santo Domingo back to Spain (November 1500 CE). The Bobadilla family was related to Abbadid dynasty of Seville (1031 -1091 CE). On October 12, 1492 CE, Columbus landed on a little island in the Bahamas that was called Guanahani by the natives. Renamed San Salvador by Columbus, Guanahani is derived from Mandinka and modified Arabic words. Guana (Ikhwana) means ‘brothers’ and Hani is an Arabic name. Therefore the original name of the island was ‘Hani Brothers.’
Ferdinand Columbus, the son of Christopher, wrote about the blacks seen by his father in Honduras: “The people who live farther east of Pointe Cavinas, as far as Cape Gracios a Dios, are almost black in color.” At the same time in this very same region, lived a tribe of Muslim natives known as Almamy. In Mandinka and Arabic languages Almamy was the designation of “Al-Imam” or “Al-Imamu,” the person who leads the Prayer, or in some cases, the chief of the community, and/or a member of the Imami Muslim community. 4. A renowned American historian and linguist Leo Weiner of Harvard University, in his book Africa and The Discovery of America (1920) wrote that Columbus was well aware of the Mandinka presence in the New World and that the West African Muslims had spread throughout the Caribbean, Central, South and North American territories, including Canada, where they were trading and intermarrying with the Iroquois and Algonquin Indians. Geographic Explorations 1. The famous Muslim geographer and cartographer Al-Sharif Al-Idrisi (1099 - 1166 CE) wrote in his famous book ‘Nuzhat al-Mushtaq fi-Ikhtiraq al-Afaq (Excursion of the longing in crossing horizons) that a group of seafarers (from North Africa) sailed into the sea of darkness and fog (the Atlantic ocean) from Lisbon (Portugal), in order to discover what was in it and what extent were its limits. They finally reached an island that had people and cultivation....on the fourth day, a translator spoke to them in the Arabic language. 2. The Muslim reference books mentioned a well-documented description of a journey across the sea of fog and darkness by Shaikh Zayn-eddine Ali ben Fadhel Al-Mazandarani. His journey started from Tarfay (south Morocco) during the reign of the King Abu-Yacoub Sidi Youssef (1286 - 1307 CE) sixth of the Marinid dynasty, to Green Island in the Caribbean sea in 1291 CE (690 AH). The details of his ocean journey are mentioned in Islamic references, and many Muslim scholars are aware of this recorded historical event. 3. The Muslim historian Chihab Addine Abul-Abbas Ahmad ben Fadhl Al-Umari (1300 - 1384 CE, 700 - 786 AH) described in detail the geographical explorations beyond the sea of fog and darkness of Male’s sultans in his famous book ‘Masaalik al-absaar fi Mamaalik al-amsaar (The Pathways of Sights in The Provinces of Kingdoms). 4. Sultan Mansa Kankan Musa (1312 - 1337 CE) was the world renowned Mandinka monarch of the West African Islamic empire of Mali. While traveling to Makkah on his famous Hajj in 1324 CE, he informed the scholars of the Mamluk Bahri Sultan court (an-Nasir-eddin Muhammad III, 1309 - 1340 CE) in Cairo that his brother, Sultan Abu Bakari I (1285 - 1312 CE) had undertaken two expeditions into the Atlantic ocean. When the sultan did not return to Timbuktu from the second voyage of 1311 CE, Mansa Musa became sultan of the empire. 5.Columbus and early Spanish and Portuguese explorers were able to voyage across the Atlantic (a distance of 24,000 Kilometers) thanks to Muslim geographical and navigational information, in particular maps made by Muslim traders, including Al-Masudi (871 - 957 CE) in his book ‘Akhbar Az-Zaman’ (History of The World) which is based on material gathered in Africa and Asia. As a matter of fact, Columbus had two captains of Muslim origin during his first transatlantic voyage: Martin Alonso Pinzon was the captain of the Pinta, and his brother Vicente Yanex Pinzon was the captain of the Nina. They were wealthy, expert ship outfitters who helped organize the Columbus expedition and repaired the flagship Santa Maria. They did this at their own expense for both commercial and political reasons. The Pinzon family was related to Abuzayan Muhammad III (1362 - 66 CE), the Moroccan sultan of the Marinid dynasty (1196 - 1465 CE).
Arabic (Islamic) Inscriptions l. Anthropologists have proven that the Mandinkas under Mansa Musa's instructions explored many parts of North America via the Mississippi and other rivers systems. At Four Corners, Arizona, writings show that they even brought elephants from Africa to the area. 2. 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 the top of a beautiful mountain. The ruins of mosques and minarets with inscriptions of Qur'anic verses have been discovered in Cuba, Mexico, Texas and Nevada. 3. 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 Guanine, a word of West African derivation meaning ‘gold alloy.’ Oddly enough, it is related to the Arabic world ‘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 percent), six parts silver (18.75 percent and eight parts copper (25 percent), the same ratio as the metal produced in African metal shops of Guinea. 4. In 1498 CE, on his third voyage to the New World, Columbus landed in Trinidad. Later, he sighted the South American continent, where some of his crew went ashore and found natives using colorful handkerchiefs of symmetrically woven cotton. Columbus noticed the these handkerchiefs resembled the head dresses and loincloths of Guinea in their colors, style and function. He referred to them as Almayzars. Almayzar is an Arabic word for ‘wrapper,’ ‘cover,’ ‘apron’ and or ‘skirting,’ which was the cloth the Moors (Spanish or North African Muslims) imported from West Africa (Guinea) into Morocco, Spain and Portugal. During this voyage, Columbus was surprised that the married women wore cotton panties (bragas) and he wondered where these natives learned their modesty. Hernando Cortez, Spanish conqueror, described the dress of the Indian women as long veils and the dress of Indian men as ‘breechcloth painted in the style of Moorish draperies.’ Ferdinand Columbus called the native cotton garments ‘breechclothes of the same design and cloth as the shawls worn by the Moorish women of Granada.’ Even the similarity of the children's hammocks to those found in North Africa was uncanny. 5. Dr. Barry Fell (Harvard University) introduced in his book Saga America - 1980 solid scientific evidence supporting the arrival, centuries before Columbus, of Muslims from North and West Africa. Dr. Fell discovered the existence of Muslim schools at Valley of Fire, Allan Springs, Logomarsino, Keyhole Canyon, Washoe and Hickison Summit Pass (Nevada), Mesa Verde (Colorado), Mimbres Valley (New Mexico) and Tipper Canoe (Indiana) dating back to 700-800 CE. Engraved on rocks in the old western US, he found texts, diagrams and charts representing the last surviving fragments of what was once a system of schools - at both an elementary and higher levels. The language of instruction was North African Arabic written with old Kufic Arabic script. The subjects of instruction included writing, reading, arithmetic, religion, history, geography, mathematics, astronomy and sea navigation. The descendants of the Muslim visitors of North America are members of the present Iroquois, Algonquin, Anasazi, Hohokam and Olmec native people. 6. There are 565 names of places (villages, towns, cities, mountains, lakes, rivers, etc.) in USA (484) and Canada (81) which are derived from Islamic and Arabic roots. These places were originally named by the natives in pre-Columbian period. Some of these names carried holy meanings such as: Mecca (Indiana) - 720 inhabitants, Makkah Indian tribe (Washington), Medina (Idaho) - 2100, Medina (NY) - 8500, Medina and Hazen (North Dakota) - 1100 and 5000, respectively, Medina (Ohio) - 12,000, Medina (Tennessee) - 1100, Medina (Texas) - 26,000, Medina (Ontario) -1200, Mahomet (Illinois) - 3200, Mona (Utah) - 1100, Arva (Ontario) - 700, and many others. A careful study of the names of the native Indian tribes revealed that many names are derived from Arab and Islamic roots and origins, i.e. Anasazi, Apache, Arawak, Arikana, Chavin Cherokee, Cree, Hohokam, Hupa, Hopi, Makkah, Mahigan, Mohawk, Nazca, Zulu, Zuni, etc.
Dr. Youssef Mroueh Courtesy BIC, UK and MSANews/MSANet, USA. Explanatory text in [...] and the web version by Dr. A. Zahoor.
Posted by Hotep2u (Member # 9820) on :
Greetings:
Sidirom wrote:
quote: Again you show your ignorance. Mosquitos transmit the disease from one human host to another. Before African arrivals we did not have human hosts carrying the disease.
FACT is Before African arrivals we did not have Human Beings PERIOD, do not forget that. Proving if the Afrikan was here first of COURSE the Afrikan will be the First to host a disease that is transmittable to humans because no other humans were here except the Afrikan to transmit the disease to. Please include the fact that Before Afrikan arrivals no human beings were speaking a language, walking upright, exhibiting HIGH INTELLIGENCE and BUILDING Civilizations so don’t forget that either. So being the first carry’s its ups and downs.
Sidirom wrote:
quote: You must have forgotten a full coastal route. What a moron. I have already shown plenty of other currents have taken accidental travelers to and from the Americans. This is not enough to constitute a population mifration. Nice try.
FACT NO. 2 THE CANARY CURRENTS TRAVEL FROM WEST AFRIKA TO SOUTH AMERICA.
Ocean Currents are what Ocean Navigators use to travel Ocean routes! When you begin to understand what I’m telling then you will realize the ignorance that you are now proving. Intelligent people understand that someone cannot just build a boat with a sail and decide to travel a Ocean route. Let me tell Sidirom a little secret EVEN TODAY SAILORS CAN’T PREDICT the Oceanic Currents, U.S military sailors who are using Satellite Navigation systems sometimes get lost at sea so if you think that some one living over 3500 years ago could sail from Australia challenging the NUMEROUS and ever changing Ocean Currents and successfully sail from Australia to South America using simple Navigation instruments if any, then I have a bridge in BROOKLYN to sell Sidirom with a line of cars included.
The CANARY CURRENTS are a Direct class 1 Current leading from West Afrika to South America so someone in West Afrika can build a boat put up a sail and use the CANARY CURRENTS to take them to South America, and they will reach within 1-2 weeks. Australians don’t have that luxury. Some Eurocentric’s say things that shows such high IGNORANCE.
Sidirom wrote:
quote: And yet they didn't use it because they weren't aware of America. Neither did the Euproeans. Such is life. No current to bring accidental travelers back to tell the tale.
Typical Eurocentric because Europeans didn’t know about America, Sidirom believes Afrikans didn’t know about it also L L. Sidirom believes Knowledge began Europeans L L, or Europeans are the smartest people in the world so if they don’t know then no one cannot possibly know L L. Racism is the ultimate tool to dumb down the masses. I told Sidirom to research what are Oceanic Currents and it is obvious that Sidirom didn’t listen.
South Equatorial Currents:
These buoys travel thousands of km (south-) westward in the South Equatorial Current (SEC) and end up in the North Brazil Current. Buoy 00001611 was initially in the eastward North Equatorial Current, then the Guinea Current, before it ended up in the SEC.
Equatorial Currents lead the bouys to the Guinea Current. From West Afrika to Brazil, from Brazil to West Afrika these buoys proved it.
Sidirom Wrote:
quote: A coastal route around the North Pacific could have led early explorers to lands later submerged when melting glaciers raised sea levels. The possibility of an Ice Age migration directly across the Pacific is widely discounted, but Polynesians certainly had that capability by 500 A.D., when Hawaii and Easter Island were inhabited
This is beyond Speculation, this is just plain wishful thinking to claim that people traveling a coastal route ended up migrating to South America and building similar statues that are located in West Afrika while ignoring the FACT that west Afrika is the easiest route to get to and from South America, is really funny if you think about but then again let me allow Sidirom to answer this form of Wishful thinking.
Sidirom wrote:
quote: Still wishful thinking. possibility does not mean occurence.
Sidirom wrote:
quote:"Early people might have moved south from the Bering Strait by following a chain of small ice-free areas that existed along the outer Pacific coast," Knut Fladmark, a professor of archaeology at Simon Fraser University in British Columbia, told me by e-mail. "Many of those areas would now be underwater.
I wonder what Sidirom would do if Knut Fladmark (LOL the names speaks volumes) told him the world was FLAT? Early people might NOT have moved south from the Bering Straight by NOT following a imaginable ice-free area that didn’t have to exist along the outer Pacific coast,” just to prove Knut Fladmark might be Knut is nuts and off the mark Fladmark. Eurocentrics will say just about anything to try to cover up the Truth. Professor Knut Fladmark needs to start issuing refunds to those students right now because this idea is really illogical and beyond speculative. Sidirom said it well before so lets hear it again.
Sidirom speaks again:
quote: Still wishful thinking. possibility does not mean occurence.
Hotep
Posted by Supercar (Member # 6477) on :
quote:Originally posted by Clyde Winters:
Here you are wrong. I am a Black American. As a group we identify ourselves as African American. If we can call ourselves African American, and be considered Black, there is nothing wrong with considering the Olmecs, who were Blacks
Well, if Black Americans, who have relatively recent ancestry [and even if they didn't] call themselves Africans, I see nothing wrong with it, as it is their choice to make. The same applies to other Black natives elsewhere outside Africa.
quote: Clyde Winters: The Proto-Olmec could not settle along the Niger river, because it was heavily forested and offered any colonist in the area the possibility of dying due to sleeping sickness.
…while other Africans saw fit to settle the region.
quote: Clyde Winters: As a result they probably moved westward until they entered the Atlantic. By avoiding heavily forested areas that were centers of diseases---allowed the Proto-Olmec or Xi people, to arrive in Mexico free of diseases . This is why these Africans did not spread epidemics, like the Europeanes devastated Native Americans.
…like Nomads?
quote: Clyde Winters: Ancient Africans probably navigated their ships by the stars. We know they probably made maps of their voyage to Mexico, because they took back to Africa, maize . Jeffreys presents an abundance of evidence that Africans in West Africa were already being cultivated when the Portuguese arrived in West Africa. His research indicated that cultivation of maize moved from west to east.
The Olmec were predominately farmers, miners and craftsmen. According to Philip J. Arnold III, in Olmec Art and Archaeology in Meso America ,edited by Clark and Pye, it is clear from the archaeological evidence that while the Gulf Olmecs practiced a sedentary maize based society, most of the other people living in Veracruz, like the people in the Tuxtlas, were mobile people who practiced fishing, hunting and collecting as their method of subsistence.
Not that maize thing, as we had heard about millets in India…but this time, American species in Africa? When did American maize first arrive in west Africa, according to your “sources”?
quote: Clyde Winters: The main group responsible for the production of stela and statues were the Fa. The Fa, often served as Governors, they also officiated at religious ceremonies and were responsible for acculturating the Olmec children to Olmec society.
The Olmec did not need Amerinds to sculpt their monuments. They brought craftsmen with them when they settled Mexico.
To sculpt the monuments the Olmec craftsmen used wooden millets, chisels and a variety of stone tools, stone axes, hammer stones and sandstone saws to flake and grind local basalt. Archaeologists believe the Olmec used many carvable boulders from Tustla foothills to make their stela and statues.
In Saharan Africa greenstones have been found on many habitation sites. In Mexico the Olmec continued the practice of working green stone to make tools.
I believe it was already brought to your attention in another discussion, that the examples you showed of colossal head structures, date later than the Olmec sculptures, not to mention marked distinctions in details. Africans and ancient Americans working with green stones in itself doesn’t suggest any direct links, unless you can demonstrate links in the way these tools were modified, and that these ‘unique or specific’ techniques in Africa precede such practices in America, such that no other explanation can be provided for their presence in Ancient America; or else, there isn’t much material here for cultural diffusion.
quote: Clyde Winters: The commercialism, science and technology of the Blacks of Olmecland, has led many researchers to declare the Olmecs as the ‘Mother Culture’ of Mexico. These Black Africans spread Mande civilization throughout Mexico. Since they were from Africa and they were Black , there is nothing wrong with calling these people African because they were not descendants of the original Blacks who settled many parts of the Americas 40,000ybp.
Something interesting though, these folks supposedly spread “Mande” civilization, but there are “Mande” speaking folks with their various cultures in west Africa. I could have sworn that you mentioned that the proto-Olmecs couldn’t settle along the Niger River, because of heavy forest and disease like sleeping sickness. So these proto-Olmecs just decided not to follow suite as their “Mande” colleagues. Did they consider themselves too smart to mix with other Mande speakers in the region, or were they considered ‘outcasts’ by other Mande speakers? What common cultural traits do the Olmec “Mande civilization” have with its African “Mande” counterparts, that can be deemed as undeniable links between them?
Posted by Clyde Winters (Member # 10129) on :
supercar quote: _________________________________________________________________ quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Clyde Winters: The Proto-Olmec could not settle along the Niger river, because it was heavily forested and offered any colonist in the area the possibility of dying due to sleeping sickness. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
…while other Africans saw fit to settle the region. _________________________________________________________________
The McIntoshes have made it clear that the Niger Delta was settled until after 250 BC because of its forestation.
I don't think they felt they were to good to settle among the other mande in Tichitt, they just moved further West because of the population pressure there did not allow them enough room to settle.
Given the numerous Olmec mining sites in MesoAmerica, large numbers of Proto-Olmec may have setlled Mexico with their families to participate in the economic boom taking place in MesoAmerica resulting from the discovery of new sources of green stone and other items important in the Saharan trade system 3500 years ago.
Posted by rasol (Member # 4592) on :
quote:Salassin lies: I don't claim races.
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: Salassin, honestly, why do you insist on such asinine comments?
quote:Winters writes: I am a Black American. As a group we identify ourselves as African American. If we can call ourselves African American, and be considered Black, there is nothing wrong with considering the Olmecs, who were Blacks African because they originally came from Africa and were not native to America. Moreover, the Olmec name for themselves: Xi, means ‘black’.
If they came to America directly from Africa during historical times you are correct and the Olmec were Black Africans.
If they came from the Pacific and are descendant from the Paleo-Indians then you are incorrect, and they were Black Paleo-Indians - but not African.
Posted by Clyde Winters (Member # 10129) on :
Your maps are quite interesting. They show places where Europeans sighted Africans/Black people. Let's not forget the significant influence of African genes among Brazilian groups.
When the Europeans came to the Americas they discovered Africans were already well established in Latin America ( Quatrefages, 1889; Rafinesque, 1836; Wiener, 1920-1922; Winters, 1984c, 1984d; Wuthenau, 1980) . On Columbus' third voyage he noted Blacks sailing in the Caribbean. Other Africans were found in the interior of the Isthmus of Panama. And Bishop Las Casas wrote about an African king residing in the same part of Panama.
A. de Quatrefages (1889), claimed that Africans formerly lived in Florida, the Caribbean, Mexico and Panama he identified the Otomi and Chontal as representatives of these Black people. The American linguist C.S. Rafinesque (1836) was sure that "many nations of Brazil and Guyana are more recent and of African origin" (p.9). He also discovered that an Amerind language called Yarura was an Ashante cognate.
Posted by Clyde Winters (Member # 10129) on :
If they came from the Pacific and are descendant from the Paleo-Indians then you are incorrect, and they were Black Paleo-Indians - but not African. ________________________________________________________
I will concede the fact that Wiercinski's determination of Subpacific people, appear to reflect the Las Bolas type. I am therefore coming around to the idea these people were of Pacific origin and may include people who adopted Olmec culture traits.
Posted by rasol (Member # 4592) on :
^ Dr. Winters, I am very impressed with your openmindedness and willingness to consider different possibilities. That's never easy to do.
Respect. Posted by Nimr (Member # 10456) on :
quote:Originally posted by zulu: It is recorded, for example that in the mid-tenth century during the rule of the Umayed Caliph Abdul-Rahman III (929-961), Muslims of African origin sailed westward from the Spanish port of Delba (Palos) into the “Ocean of darkness an fog.” They returned after a long absence with much booty from a “strange and curious land.”
Which could have been any of a bunch of islands. Maybe even Brittain.
But the foremost Arab geographer of the Middle Ages, al-Idrisi, who was born in Morocco in A.D. 1100 and knew the Atlantic better than most, wrote of the "Ocean of Darkness" (the Atlantic Ocean): Nobody knows what exists beyond that sea, nobody has been able to learn anything sure on account of the difficulties that prevent navigation, because of the depth of darkness, the height of the waves, the frequency of storms, the multiplicity of monstrous animals and the violence of the winds. Yet there are a number of islands in this ocean, either inhabited or uninhabited, but no navigator dares to cross it nor to gain the high seas. They limit themselves to hugging the coast, without losing sight of the shore. (al-Idrisi1968: 197).
quote: It is evident that people of Muslim origin are known to have accompanied Columbus and subsequent Spanish explorers to the New World.
Yet none of them knew of the existence of America.
l. A Muslim historian and geographer Abul-Hassan Ali Ibn Al-Hussain Al-Masudi (871 - 957 CE) wrote in his book ‘Muruj Adh-dhahab wa Maadin al-Jawhar’ (The Meadows of Gold and Quarries of Jewels) that during the rule of the Muslim Caliph of Spain Abdullah Ibn Muhammad (888 - 912 CE), a Muslim navigator Khashkhash Ibn Saeed Ibn Aswad of Cordoba, Spain sailed from Delba (Palos) in 889 CE, crossed the Atlantic, reached an unknown territory (Ard Majhoola) and returned with fabulous treasures. In Al-Masudi's map of the world there is a large area in the ocean of darkness and fog (the Atlantic ocean) which he referred to as the unknown territory (the Americas).[/quote] Funny how this territory does not show up in the Arab maps.
Feel free to show the maps.
quote:2. A Muslim historian Abu Bakr Ibn Umar Al-Gutiyya narrated that during the reign of the Muslim Caliph of Spain, Hisham II (976 -1009 CE), another Muslim navigator Ibn Farrukh of Granada sailed from Kadesh (February 999 CE) into the Atlantic, landed in Gando (Great Canary Islands) visiting King Guanariga, and continued westward where he saw and named two islands, Capraria and Pluitana. He arrived back in Spain in May 999 CE.
Again, where is the evidence that Capracia and Pluitana are the Americas. In fact there is evidence that Capracia and Pluitana are part of the six island chain also mentioned by Ptolemy. "The Madeiran Archipelago consists of five islands disposed in a scalene triangle, whose points are Porto Santo (23 miles, north-east), Madeira (west), and the three Desertas (11 miles, south-east). The Great and Little Piton of the Selvagens, or Salvages (100 miles, south), though belonging to Portugal and to the district of Funchal, are geographically included in the Canarian group. Thus, probably, we may explain the 'Aprositos,' or Inaccessible Island, which Ptolemy Footnote: The great Alexandrian is here (iv. 6, §§ 33-4) sadly out of his reckoning. He places the group of six islands adjacent to Libya many degrees too far south (N. lat. 10°-16°), and assigns one meridian (0° 0' 0") to Aprositos, Pluitana , Caspeiria (Capraria, Lanzarote), and another and the same (1° 0' 0") to Pintouaria (Nivaria, Tenerife), Hera (Junonia, Gomera,), and Canaria.
quote:On October 12, 1492 CE, Columbus landed on a little island in the Bahamas that was called Guanahani by the natives. Renamed San Salvador by Columbus, Guanahani is derived from Mandinka and modified Arabic words. Guana (Ikhwana) means ‘brothers’ and Hani is an Arabic name. Therefore the original name of the island was ‘Hani Brothers.’
Guanahani mean welcom in Arawak
quote:Ferdinand Columbus, the son of Christopher, wrote about the blacks seen by his father in Honduras: “The people who live farther east of Pointe Cavinas, as far as Cape Gracios a Dios, are almost black in color.” At the same time in this very same region, lived a tribe of Muslim natives known as Almamy. In Mandinka and Arabic languages Almamy was the designation of “Al-Imam” or “Al-Imamu,” the person who leads the Prayer, or in some cases, the chief of the community, and/or a member of the Imami Muslim community.
Feel free to quote your reference. No record of any Almamy people.
quote:4. A renowned American historian and linguist Leo Weiner of Harvard University, in his book Africa and The Discovery of America (1920) wrote that Columbus was well aware of the Mandinka presence in the New World and that the West African Muslims had spread throughout the Caribbean, Central, South and North American territories, including Canada, where they were trading and intermarrying with the Iroquois and Algonquin Indians.
LOL. Wiener, Rafinesque, Wierzinski. Al discredited claims.
quote:1. The famous Muslim geographer and cartographer Al-Sharif Al-Idrisi (1099 - 1166 CE) wrote in his famous book ‘Nuzhat al-Mushtaq fi-Ikhtiraq al-Afaq (Excursion of the longing in crossing horizons) that a group of seafarers (from North Africa) sailed into the sea of darkness and fog (the Atlantic ocean) from Lisbon (Portugal), in order to discover what was in it and what extent were its limits. They finally reached an island that had people and cultivation....on the fourth day, a translator spoke to them in the Arabic language.
Yet no evidence of this claims or mention of this land in Al Idrisi's maps (shown above)
quote:2. The Muslim reference books mentioned a well-documented description of a journey across the sea of fog and darkness by Shaikh Zayn-eddine Ali ben Fadhel Al-Mazandarani. His journey started from Tarfay (south Morocco) during the reign of the King Abu-Yacoub Sidi Youssef (1286 - 1307 CE) sixth of the Marinid dynasty, to Green Island in the Caribbean sea in 1291 CE (690 AH). The details of his ocean journey are mentioned in Islamic references, and many Muslim scholars are aware of this recorded historical event.
Then you can reference these claims. Posts like these are entertaining because they make a lot of claims but give no references to be verified.
quote:3. The Muslim historian Chihab Addine Abul-Abbas Ahmad ben Fadhl Al-Umari (1300 - 1384 CE, 700 - 786 AH) described in detail the geographical explorations beyond the sea of fog and darkness of Male’s sultans in his famous book ‘Masaalik al-absaar fi Mamaalik al-amsaar (The Pathways of Sights in The Provinces of Kingdoms). 4. Sultan Mansa Kankan Musa (1312 - 1337 CE) was the world renowned Mandinka monarch of the West African Islamic empire of Mali. While traveling to Makkah on his famous Hajj in 1324 CE, he informed the scholars of the Mamluk Bahri Sultan court (an-Nasir-eddin Muhammad III, 1309 - 1340 CE) in Cairo that his brother, Sultan Abu Bakari I (1285 - 1312 CE) had undertaken two expeditions into the Atlantic ocean. When the sultan did not return to Timbuktu from the second voyage of 1311 CE, Mansa Musa became sultan of the empire.
Again, no evidence, just empty claims
quote:5.Columbus and early Spanish and Portuguese explorers were able to voyage across the Atlantic (a distance of 24,000 Kilometers) thanks to Muslim geographical and navigational information, in particular maps made by Muslim traders, including Al-Masudi (871 - 957 CE) in his book ‘Akhbar Az-Zaman’ (History of The World) which is based on material gathered in Africa and Asia. As a matter of fact, Columbus had two captains of Muslim origin during his first transatlantic voyage: Martin Alonso Pinzon was the captain of the Pinta, and his brother Vicente Yanex Pinzon was the captain of the Nina. They were wealthy, expert ship outfitters who helped organize the Columbus expedition and repaired the flagship Santa Maria. They did this at their own expense for both commercial and political reasons. The Pinzon family was related to Abuzayan Muhammad III (1362 - 66 CE), the Moroccan sultan of the Marinid dynasty (1196 - 1465 CE).
Yet both brothers had no knowledge of the Americas.
quote:Arabic (Islamic) Inscriptions l. Anthropologists have proven that the Mandinkas under Mansa Musa's instructions explored many parts of North America via the Mississippi and other rivers systems. At Four Corners, Arizona, writings show that they even brought elephants from Africa to the area.
Oh yeah elephants as well.
quote:2. 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 the top of a beautiful mountain. The ruins of mosques and minarets with inscriptions of Qur'anic verses have been discovered in Cuba, Mexico, Texas and Nevada.
More empty claims without evidence.
quote:3. 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 Guanine, a word of West African derivation meaning ‘gold alloy.’ Oddly enough, it is related to the Arabic world ‘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 percent), six parts silver (18.75 percent and eight parts copper (25 percent), the same ratio as the metal produced in African metal shops of Guinea.
More falsehoods.
This was the third not the 2nd voyage. There is NO direct Columbus saying anything about the 3rd Voyage. The only report available is an extract made from Columbus' log made by de las Casas.
This is from a claim of Van Sertima. "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)" From BOM: 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%> ****** References Bosman, W. 1967 [1705]. A New and Accurate Description of the Coast of Guinea. London: Frank Cass & Co. Blust, R. 1992. "Tumbaga in Southeast Asia and South America," Anthropos 87: 443-457. Diamond, J. 1994. "How Africa Became Black," Discover (February): 72-81. Hosler, D. 1994. The Sounds and Colors of Power. The Sacred Metallurgical Technology of Ancient West Mexico. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Lawrence, H. 1987. "Mandinga Voyages Across the Atlantic," in African Presence in Early America. edited by I. Van Sertima. 55-81. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Books. Lechtman, H. 1988. "Tradition and Styles in Central Andean Metalworking," In The Beginning of the Use of Metals and Alloys, ed. R. Maddin. 344-378. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Lechtman, H., A. Erlij, and E. J. Barry. 1982. "New Perspectives on Moche Metallurgy: Techniques of Gilding Copper at Loma Negra, Northern Peru." Antiquity. 47: 3-30 Morison, S.E. 1942. Admiral of the Open Sea. A Life of Christopher Columbus. Boston: Little Brown. Morison, S.E.trans. and ed. 1963. Journals and Other Documents on the Life and Voyages of Christopher Columbus New York:The Heritage Press. Rivet, P. and H. Arsandaux. 1946. La Métallurgie en Amérique Précolombienne. Paris: Institut d'Ethnologie, Musée de l'Homme. Schmidt, P. R., ed. 1996. The Culture and Technology of African Iron Production. Gainesville, FL: University Press of Florida. Schmidt, P. R. and S. T. Childs. 1995. "Ancient African Iron Production," American Scientist 83: 524-533. Thacher, J.B. 1903-1904. Christopher Columbus. His Life, His Works, His Remains. NY: G.P. Putnam's Sons. Van Sertima, I.1995. African Presence in Early America. in Race, Discourse, and the Origin of the Americas: A New World View. edited by V. L. Hyatt and R. Nettleford. 66 -----1998. Early America Revisited. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Publishers.
quote:4. In 1498 CE, on his third voyage to the New World, Columbus landed in Trinidad. Later, he sighted the South American continent, where some of his crew went ashore and found natives using colorful handkerchiefs of symmetrically woven cotton. Columbus noticed the these handkerchiefs resembled the head dresses and loincloths of Guinea in their colors, style and function. He referred to them as Almayzars. Almayzar is an Arabic word for ‘wrapper,’ ‘cover,’ ‘apron’ and or ‘skirting,’ which was the cloth the Moors (Spanish or North African Muslims) imported from West Africa (Guinea) into Morocco, Spain and Portugal. During this voyage, Columbus was surprised that the married women wore cotton panties (bragas) and he wondered where these natives learned their modesty. Hernando Cortez, Spanish conqueror, described the dress of the Indian women as long veils and the dress of Indian men as ‘breechcloth painted in the style of Moorish draperies.’ Ferdinand Columbus called the native cotton garments ‘breechclothes of the same design and cloth as the shawls worn by the Moorish women of Granada.’ Even the similarity of the children's hammocks to those found in North Africa was uncanny.
More entertaining hearsay claims. Please, please provide some sources for these claims.
quote:5. Dr. Barry Fell (Harvard University) introduced in his book Saga America - 1980 solid scientific evidence supporting the arrival, centuries before Columbus, of Muslims from North and West Africa. Dr. Fell discovered the existence of Muslim schools at Valley of Fire, Allan Springs, Logomarsino, Keyhole Canyon, Washoe and Hickison Summit Pass (Nevada), Mesa Verde (Colorado), Mimbres Valley (New Mexico) and Tipper Canoe (Indiana) dating back to 700-800 CE. Engraved on rocks in the old western US, he found texts, diagrams and charts representing the last surviving fragments of what was once a system of schools - at both an elementary and higher levels. The language of instruction was North African Arabic written with old Kufic Arabic script. The subjects of instruction included writing, reading, arithmetic, religion, history, geography, mathematics, astronomy and sea navigation. The descendants of the Muslim visitors of North America are members of the present Iroquois, Algonquin, Anasazi, Hohokam and Olmec native people.
You do know Fell's specialty was not linguistics by Ichtyiology right? He was an expert in fishes. No linguist has taken his hobby claims seriously. There is a whol band of diffusionists that make claims like this, but none presents solid evidence.
quote:6. There are 565 names of places (villages, towns, cities, mountains, lakes, rivers, etc.) in USA (484) and Canada (81) which are derived from Islamic and Arabic roots. These places were originally named by the natives in pre-Columbian period. Some of these names carried holy meanings such as: Mecca (Indiana) - 720 inhabitants, Makkah Indian tribe (Washington), Medina (Idaho) - 2100, Medina (NY) - 8500, Medina and Hazen (North Dakota) - 1100 and 5000, respectively, Medina (Ohio) - 12,000, Medina (Tennessee) - 1100, Medina (Texas) - 26,000, Medina (Ontario) -1200, Mahomet (Illinois) - 3200, Mona (Utah) - 1100, Arva (Ontario) - 700, and many others. A careful study of the names of the native Indian tribes revealed that many names are derived from Arab and Islamic roots and origins, i.e. Anasazi, Apache, Arawak, Arikana, Chavin Cherokee, Cree, Hohokam, Hupa, Hopi, Makkah, Mahigan, Mohawk, Nazca, Zulu, Zuni, etc.
This is too comedic to even address. Posted by Nimr (Member # 10456) on :
quote:Originally posted by Hotep2u: FACT is Before African arrivals we did not have Human Beings PERIOD
Strawman alert.
quote:Proving if the Afrikan was here first of COURSE the Afrikan will be the First to host a disease that is transmittable to humans because no other humans were here except the Afrikan to transmit the disease to.
And because of the fact Africans were exposed to Malaria and Yellow Fever and had higher resistance to it (A resistance to Malaria in the form of Sickle cell anemia passed on to Southern Europe through admixture), a disease that has been passed on to all populations where they have admixed, a disease that did not exist in latin America, even though sickle cell disease is ancient in Africa. Thus pointing that that West African migration before was highly unilely.
quote: Please include the fact that Before Afrikan arrivals no human beings were speaking a language, walking upright, exhibiting HIGH INTELLIGENCE and BUILDING Civilizations so don’t forget that either. So being the first carry’s its ups and downs.
Before African arrivals there were no human beings. Another strawman. But once people migrated out, and settled in other parts of the world, we do not call them Africans. If not, I can easily say the Africans in Europe were the conquerors of the Americas.
quote:THE CANARY CURRENTS TRAVEL FROM WEST AFRIKA TO SOUTH AMERICA. Ocean Currents are what Ocean Navigators use to travel Ocean routes! Intelligent people understand that someone cannot just build a boat with a sail and decide to travel a Ocean route. Let me tell Sidirom a little secret EVEN TODAY SAILORS CAN’T PREDICT the Oceanic Currents, U.S military sailors who are using Satellite Navigation systems sometimes get lost at sea so if you think that some one living over 3500 years ago could sail from Australia challenging the NUMEROUS and ever changing Ocean Currents and successfully sail from Australia to South America using simple Navigation instruments if any, then I have a bridge in BROOKLYN to sell Sidirom with a line of cars included.
Another strawman. COastal travel does not need such high levels of navigation. The Paleo-Indians would have hugged the coast in their travels.
quote:The CANARY CURRENTS are a Direct class 1 Current leading from West Afrika to South America so someone in West Afrika can build a boat put up a sail and use the CANARY CURRENTS to take them to South America, and they will reach within 1-2 weeks. Australians don’t have that luxury.
Another falsehood. Many people in the Canary Islands crossed the Atlantic to Cuba, Venezuela and Brazil in small boats, especially in the 1950s to escape poverty, and it took them around 3 to 4 weeks. But there is a key detail. Canarians have no record of traveling to the Americas, yet some Mande on the continent are going to go where the Canarians never went on a current that goes right by their island. Or are you trying to claim the Guinea current is stronger?
On a sad side note: The Canary Current has been a frustration and has caused deaths presently as illegal migrant Africans have had to fight it in their efforts to reach the Canaries and then Europe. They have been sailing in relatively frail hand crafted wooden fishing boats against the current.
quote:Typical Eurocentric because Europeans didn’t know about America, Sidirom believes Afrikans didn’t know about it also L L. Sidirom believes Knowledge began Europeans L L, or Europeans are the smartest people in the world so if they don’t know then no one cannot possibly know L
Typical Afrocentric strawman. When lacking strong evidence rely on ad hominems.
quote: L. Racism is the ultimate tool to dumb down the masses.
And your tools have definitely dumbed you down.
quote:South Equatorial Currents: These buoys travel thousands of km (south-) westward in the South Equatorial Current (SEC) and end up in the North Brazil Current. Buoy 00001611 was initially in the eastward North Equatorial Current, then the Guinea Current, before it ended up in the SEC. Equatorial Currents lead the bouys to the Guinea Current. From West Afrika to Brazil, from Brazil to West Afrika these buoys proved it.
What i notice is that the way back of that buoy is eratic, and there is no time frame for that bouy's travel. Feel free to show it is a viable travel mode back to Africa.
quote:This is beyond Speculation, this is just plain wishful thinking to claim that people traveling a coastal route ended up migrating to South America and building similar statues that are located in West Afrika
Nice try. There are no similar statues in Africa. Amorphous blobs are not the same as the Olmec megalyths. Furthermore those blobs date to much later dates than the Olmecs.
quote:while ignoring the FACT that west Afrika is the easiest route to get to and from South America, is really funny if you think about but then again let me allow Sidirom to answer this form of Wishful thinking.
If you know what is a cross the sea and have a sturdy ship and sufficient food for the crossing. Again wishful thinking.
quote:I wonder what Sidirom would do if Knut Fladmark (LOL the names speaks volumes) told him the world was FLAT? Early people might NOT have moved south from the Bering Straight by NOT following a imaginable ice-free area that didn’t have to exist along the outer Pacific coast,” just to prove Knut Fladmark might be Knut is nuts and off the mark Fladmark.
The dumb attack on the scientist's name shows how much Hootie is grasping at straws. Posted by Nimr (Member # 10456) on :
quote: Originally posted by Clyde Winters: Given the numerous Olmec mining sites in MesoAmerica, large numbers of Proto-Olmec may have setlled Mexico with their families to participate in the economic boom taking place in MesoAmerica resulting from the discovery of new sources of green stone and other items important in the Saharan trade system 3500 years ago.
Yeah they traded in green stone and ignored food staples and other products of MesoAmerica. Posted by Nimr (Member # 10456) on :
quote:Originally posted by rasol: If they came from the Pacific and are descendant from the Paleo-Indians then you are incorrect, and they were Black Paleo-Indians - but not African.
LOL, no you do not beleive in races, but you know these people were 'Black'. Posted by Nimr (Member # 10456) on :
quote:Originally posted by rasol: Salassin lies: I don't claim races.
What part of "De que raza soy? La raza humana" didn't you get? Human race. Not races. Singular. I go where I find people of similar ancestries as myself, even if they call the place multiracial. Not my fault. Posted by RU2religious (Member # 4547) on :
SidiRom:
I do have a question for you, why is it ok for Columbus to ""stumble across the America"" and now we have the United States of America, and it's not ok for Africans to stumble across the Alantic and Create the Olmec society?
Secondly, if Columbus found the new land by accident, then how was he able to find his way back to his home with ease if he was lost? Columbus didn't stumble across the Atlantic to find the "New land"... Columbus was directed into finding the "New Land" by African who have made the voyage previously.
Its funny, if Africans would have known that they would be in question like this and such a racist system would have formed... they would definitely formed a better system of documentation.
So if I am to understand your philosophy... European boats can stumble across a new land and reate an empire called the United States but African are no capable of creating a whole society when they stumble across new lands?
Columbus was shown how to get to Turtle Island and if he and his crew almost went hungry, that is because they didn't manage their food supplies properly. I think that it is a terrible philosophy to think that a people can stumble across a new land with hardly no food and then make it back to their land with no hunger pains and inform the Queen of their so-called findings... Lol... without getting lost on their way back.
America has a funny way of making their history sound dramatic and turning crimminals into hero's. The newland was only new to Europeans but it was nothing new to African and Siberians alike.
Let us say that their were no African in American which I believe is highly unlikely...
Either the Siberians had to show them how to get back across the Atlantic which the Siberians haven't travelled being that they came from the Pacific or the Africans show a LOST CREW how to get back throught the Atlantic without problems.
Please explain your theory because genetic testing wont help in this case.
Posted by Nimr (Member # 10456) on :
quote:Originally posted by Clyde Winters: I will concede the fact that Wiercinski's determination of Subpacific people, appear to reflect the Las Bolas type. I am therefore coming around to the idea these people were of Pacific origin and may include people who adopted Olmec culture traits.
And that would leave you beleiving exactly what about the Olmecs?
Posted by rasol (Member # 4592) on :
Salassin describes his non-ethnic non-group with no-name :
quote:I go where I find people of similar ancestries as myself. It's not my fault what they call themselves.
Definition persona non grata- A people so ashamed of themselves that they have no name. Posted by Nimr (Member # 10456) on :
quote:Originally posted by RU2religious: I do have a question for you, why is it ok for Columbus to ""stumble across the America"" and now we have the United States of America, and it's not ok for Africans to stumble across the Alantic and Create the Olmec society?
Because Colombus stumbled on it with the intent to circumnavigate, one, and two because there are records of it and plenty of evidence of America in Europe and Europe in America since then.
quote:Secondly, if Columbus found the new land by accident, then how was he able to find his way back to his home with ease if he was lost?
He did not sail in the direction by accident, he only bumped into land by accident. Sailors do know how to Sail without knowledge of currents using the stars. Most intellectuals thought Columbus crazy though. The circumference of the Earth had been calculated and people knew it was an impossible journey. Columbus based himself on innacurate math to judge the Earth smaller. Arabs were actually superior in math at this time. They would have known the Ocean was too big. Columbus got lucky and ran into the Americas or he would have died.
quote: Columbus didn't stumble across the Atlantic to find the "New land"... Columbus was directed into finding the "New Land" by African who have made the voyage previously.
Nice try. No such thing. Columbus was trying to reach the Indias, Asia, and circumvent the blockage that was occuring through land. If Africans had already been tehre, they would have known it wasn't the Indies.
quote:Its funny, if Africans would have known that they would be in question like this and such a racist system would have formed... they would definitely formed a better system of documentation.
More like the events didn't occur so there was no documentation.
quote:So if I am to understand your philosophy... European boats can stumble across a new land and reate an empire called the United States but African are no capable of creating a whole society when they stumble across new lands?
Nice attempt at a strawman. Cinese were more advanced than Europeans, yet they did not arrive to the Americas either. Sometimes it takes stupid luck.
quote:Columbus was shown how to get to Turtle Island and if he and his crew almost went hungry, that is because they didn't manage their food supplies properly. I think that it is a terrible philosophy to think that a people can stumble across a new land with hardly no food and then make it back to their land with no hunger pains and inform the Queen of their so-called findings... Lol... without getting lost on their way back.
He wasn't shown anything. If not they would have carried the right amount of food. Once you have gone one way and you have an ocean capable ship, you can go the other way.
quote:America has a funny way of making their history sound dramatic and turning crimminals into hero's. The newland was only new to Europeans but it was nothing new to African and Siberians alike.
Again no evidence. Are you talking about inuit? Of course they knew. And on the criminals to hero aspect, I agree.
quote:Let us say that their were no African in American which I believe is highly unlikely... Either the Siberians had to show them how to get back across the Atlantic which the Siberians haven't travelled being that they came from the Pacific or the Africans show a LOST CREW how to get back throught the Atlantic without problems. Please explain your theory because genetic testing wont help in this case.
You have never been sailing have you? Posted by Nimr (Member # 10456) on :
quote:Originally posted by rasol: Forum moderators will you please please ban this sick troll Salassin once and for all. Thank you.
They ban when i don't break the rules but contradict you fools. But they have no way of permanently banning me. So I no longer will pay attention to their requests.
Posted by KING (Member # 9422) on :
Why Salassin you call people fools. This is what trolls do the make fun of people because they have lost their arguements and from what I have read you have lost all your arguements. Don't be a sore loser.
Posted by Clyde Winters (Member # 10129) on :
nimr or should I say sidirom quote: ________________________________________________________________
LOL. Wiener, Rafinesque, Wierzinski. Al discredited claims.
Yeah they traded in green stone and ignored food staples and other products of MesoAmerica. ______________________________________________________________
First of all Nimr I believe you are really sidirom. This is evidenced by your discourse and writing style.
When, where and by whom were these claims discredited. Rafinesque ideas about Mayan writing are given credit as one of the major elements in the deciphermnet of the script
I have already stated that the Olmec took maize back to African where it is cultivated by many West African groups. Jeffrey has proven that maize was being cultivated in West Africa before the arrival of the Portuguese.
Posted by Clyde Winters (Member # 10129) on :
quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Originally posted by Clyde Winters: I will concede the fact that Wiercinski's determination of Subpacific people, appear to reflect the Las Bolas type. I am therefore coming around to the idea these people were of Pacific origin and may include people who adopted Olmec culture traits. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
And that would leave you beleiving exactly what about the Olmecs? ______________________________________________________________
It just confirms the multiethnic features of the middle and late Olmec period. The Olmec heartland was Vercruz.
Las Bolas and other areas outside the Olmec heartland would have had populations that were native to Mexico who adopted many aspects of the Olmec culture civilization. These people would have included Blacks, Pacific Islanders and Amerinds.
Although there were many different people living in Mexico when the Olmec arrived, there was a large number of Olmec, even into Epi-Olmec times that could trace their ancestry back to Africa and the founding fathers of the Olmec civilization that had lived at LaVenta and other sites along the coast and rivers branching into Mexico from the Atlantic coast.
Posted by Supercar (Member # 6477) on :
^As far as quibbles about elephant-like creatures in MesoAmerican cultures go, there seem to be other artistic expressions; here is one example of what appears to be a re-pro:
Posted by alTakruri (Member # 10195) on :
Unlike the pottery figurine here is something that's doubtlessly an elephant, though its an Indian not an African one.
Can the authenticity of the repro be accounted for?
^As far as quibbles about elephant-like creatures in MesoAmerican cultures go, there seem to be other artistic expressions; here is one example of what appears to be a re-pro:
Posted by Supercar (Member # 6477) on :
Can't say much about the "faithfulness" of the repro to the actual motif; perhaps the answer to that, may be found in the following publications, A Note on the Elephant in America, and The Mammoth in American Epigraphy.
However, there have been several mentions of elephant-like creatures in America, by various scholars:
Johannessen, Carl L. Professor Emeritus of Geography, University of Oregon, field research in Latin America and Asia, crops plants and Chicken.
"The Idea of Elephants Diffused Early to the Americas: Elephant images are found in sculpturess and in writings in Mexico, Belize, Honduras, and Guatemala. The oldest elephant head was sculptured on top of a human form during the age of the Olmec culture and found in the Huasteca of Mexico, who speak a Mayan language. The most complete elephant shape is from the Honduran archeological ruin at Copan in Stela B. The elephant's trunk is part of the Rain God Chac (in Mayan) and Tlaloc (in Nahuatle) in Belize. It is found in major concentrations as part of the face of the Rain God in the Puuc region of Yucatan, where they really did need the rains. The trunk curves or recurves in various ways that are elephantine and not of a Macaw as has been sometimes claimed. The Codex shows an elephant, trunk upraised, spouting water that falls as rain for the maize crop." Posted by Nimr (Member # 10456) on :
quote:Originally posted by KING: Why Salassin you call people fools. This is what trolls do the make fun of people because they have lost their arguements and from what I have read you have lost all your arguements. Don't be a sore loser.
LOL. Like you are some unbiased spectator. nice try.
Posted by Nimr (Member # 10456) on :
quote:Originally posted by Clyde Winters: First of all Nimr I believe you are really sidirom. This is evidenced by your discourse and writing style.
You think? I am not creating new identites to confuse. Just don't like being banned for not agreeing with the the current mentality on this board.
quote:When, where and by whom were these claims discredited. Rafinesque ideas about Mayan writing are given credit as one of the major elements in the deciphermnet of the script
Yes, Rafinesque was a genius. naming new animals, speaking various languages, etc. Yes he recognized the mayan Codexes for what they were. No he wasn't the one who deciphered the writing. He recognized the dot system of numerals and recognized that the Dresden and Palenque Codexes were in the same writing.
The problem with Rafinesque is that he also made claims that were false. The biggest one being the Wallam Ollum claim.
Rafinesque was one in a line of many Eurocentric authors who beleived Native Americans needed outside influence to create their civilizations.
Oestreicher, David M.
Ph.D., Rutgers U., 1995. The Anatomy of the Walam Olum: The Dissection of a 19th-Century Anthropological Hoax. 547 pp. [Supposedly discovered by the naturalist Constantine Samuel Rafinesque in 1822, the Walam Olum is allegedly a set of pictographic tablets with an accompanying text in Lenape (Delaware). Only Rafinesque’s “copy” of the tablets is known. Rafinesque claimed to have translated the accompanying Delaware text, which relates the story of Delaware Indian origins in Asia, the crossing of the Bering Strait, the conquest of the moundbuilders of the American Midwest, and the fracturing of the Delaware Indians into the numerous tribes of the Algonquian language family. Some of the leading historians and anthropologists of the 19th and 20th centuries believed the text authentic. Others have been skeptical, but until now no one has conclusively proved it a fraud. O. provides textual evidence demonstrating that the Walam Olum is indeed a hoax and that Rafinesque, the alleged discoverer, was the indisputable forger. Far from being a Delaware Indian epic, the Walam Olum was manufactured to answer some of the major dilemmas of the early 19th century, in particular how North American Indian history synchronized with the traditional history related in the Bible.
quote:I have already stated that the Olmec took maize back to African where it is cultivated by many West African groups. Jeffrey has proven that maize was being cultivated in West Africa before the arrival of the Portuguese. [/QB]
Wrong. Both Maiza and Yucca were taken to other colonies. Not just Africa, but Thailand and Indonesia as well. Maize was also taken to India along with Curry. Just like potatoes and tomatoes, they became quick staples in their new homes.
Posted by Nimr (Member # 10456) on :
quote:Originally posted by Clyde Winters: It just confirms the multiethnic features of the middle and late Olmec period. The Olmec heartland was Vercruz.
Las Bolas and other areas outside the Olmec heartland would have had populations that were native to Mexico who adopted many aspects of the Olmec culture civilization. These people would have included Blacks, Pacific Islanders and Amerinds.
Although there were many different people living in Mexico when the Olmec arrived, there was a large number of Olmec, even into Epi-Olmec times that could trace their ancestry back to Africa and the founding fathers of the Olmec civilization that had lived at LaVenta and other sites along the coast and rivers branching into Mexico from the Atlantic coast.
What i thought you would say. Still have your Mande Africans in there. Posted by Nimr (Member # 10456) on :
quote:Originally posted by alTakruri:
I have seen the re-pro and the real thing. Look at the headdress. Talk about over active imagination
Actually, that repro has nothing to do with the "headdress" in the particular abstract that you are supposedly replying to.
Posted by Nimr (Member # 10456) on :
Actually it does. I have seen that drawing before. Look at the left side of the headdress. All the elements except the Mayan dudes are there.
Posted by Supercar (Member # 6477) on :
quote:Originally posted by Nimr: Actually it does. I have seen that drawing before. Look at the left side of the headdress. All the elements except the Mayan dudes are there.
I think I now see the figure in question. Do you not think that the figure in question, is that of an elephant/elephant-like creature?
Also...
Do you have further information about the following mentioned sculptures?
Johannessen, Carl L. Professor Emeritus of Geography, University of Oregon, field research in Latin America and Asia, crops plants and Chicken.
"The Idea of Elephants Diffused Early to the Americas: Elephant images are found in sculpturess and in writings in Mexico, Belize, Honduras, and Guatemala.
The oldest elephant head was sculptured on top of a human form during the age of the Olmec culture and found in the Huasteca of Mexico, who speak a Mayan language.
The most complete elephant shape is from the Honduran archeological ruin at Copan in Stela B. The elephant's trunk is part of the Rain God Chac (in Mayan) and Tlaloc (in Nahuatle) in Belize.
It is found in major concentrations as part of the face of the Rain God in the Puuc region of Yucatan, where they really did need the rains. The trunk curves or recurves in various ways that are elephantine and not of a Macaw as has been sometimes claimed. The Codex shows an elephant, trunk upraised, spouting water that falls as rain for the maize crop."
Posted by Nimr (Member # 10456) on :
quote:Originally posted by Supercar: I think I now see the figure in question. Do you not think that the figure in question, is that of an elephant/elephant-like creature?
The think is you see many depictions that could be Tapir/Elephantine. But which is closer? Chac, the Mayan Rain God is depicted allover the place with a long snout.
Or consider Chac's counterpart in Aztec Tlaloc with Snakes in his face.
This does not equate to elephants in the land but animism in their gods.
quote:Do you have further information about the following mentioned sculptures?
Johannessen, Carl L. Professor Emeritus of Geography, University of Oregon, field research in Latin America and Asia, crops plants and Chicken.
"The Idea of Elephants Diffused Early to the Americas: Elephant images are found in sculpturess and in writings in Mexico, Belize, Honduras, and Guatemala.
The oldest elephant head was sculptured on top of a human form during the age of the Olmec culture and found in the Huasteca of Mexico, who speak a Mayan language.
The most complete elephant shape is from the Honduran archeological ruin at Copan in Stela B. The elephant's trunk is part of the Rain God Chac (in Mayan) and Tlaloc (in Nahuatle) in Belize.
It is found in major concentrations as part of the face of the Rain God in the Puuc region of Yucatan, where they really did need the rains. The trunk curves or recurves in various ways that are elephantine and not of a Macaw as has been sometimes claimed. The Codex shows an elephant, trunk upraised, spouting water that falls as rain for the maize crop."
Actually the first picture with the headdress is the Stela B of Copan.
Posted by Supercar (Member # 6477) on :
quote:Originally posted by Nimr:
quote:Originally posted by Supercar: I think I now see the figure in question. Do you not think that the figure in question, is that of an elephant/elephant-like creature?
The think is you see many depictions that could be Tapir/Elephantine. But which is closer? Chac, the Mayan Rain God is depicted allover the place with a long snout.
I get the idea about the cosmological attachment of these sculptures. This image above, rather seems to show a figure bearing a structure more like the trunk of an elephant, wouldn't you say?
Posted by Hotep2u (Member # 9820) on :
Greetings:
Sidirom wrote:
quote: Nice attempt at a strawman. Cinese were more advanced than Europeans, yet they did not arrive to the Americas either. Sometimes it takes stupid luck. He did not sail in the direction by accident, he only bumped into land by accident. Sailors do know how to Sail without knowledge of currents using the stars. Most intellectuals thought Columbus crazy though. The circumference of the Earth had been calculated and people knew it was an impossible journey. Columbus based himself on innacurate math to judge the Earth smaller. Arabs were actually superior in math at this time. They would have known the Ocean was too big. Columbus got lucky and ran into the Americas or he would have died.
Eurocentric’s are notorious for this type of silly comments such as luck carrying a whole ship somewhere, the foundation of ignorance begins when people ignore the simple facts due to arrogance towards others.
Here we see the Chinese answer to the Eurocentrics
Salsassin has never been sailing before that's why Salsassin won't end the ignorant comments.
Sidirom wrote:
quote: Another falsehood. Many people in the Canary Islands crossed the Atlantic to Cuba, Venezuela and Brazil in small boats, especially in the 1950s to escape poverty, and it took them around 3 to 4 weeks. But there is a key detail.
Canarians have no record of traveling to the Americas, yet some Mande on the continent are going to go where the Canarians never went on a current that goes right by their island. Or are you trying to claim the Guinea current is stronger?
To those who don’t know the History of the Canary Islands please read because the inhabitants we see in the Canary Islands today aren’t All the original inhabitants nor can we expect that they retained their history after being Europeanized when the Spaniards arrived.
The Canary Islands (Islas Canarias) (28° 06'N, 15° 24'W) are an archipelago of the Kingdom of Spain consisting of seven islands of volcanic origin in the Atlantic Ocean. They are located off the northwestern coast of Africa (Morocco and the Western Sahara). They form an autonomous community of Spain.
The name derives probably from a north African tribe (the Canarii) or possibly the Latin term Insularia Canaria meaning Island of the Dogs, a name applied originally only to the island of Gran Canaria.
The origins of these Canarian indigenous people have been - and indeed still are - the subject of long debates. Numerous theories have been put forward throughout the last century, achieving varying degrees of acceptance.
A common denominator to many of the theories, though, are the persisting effects of a diffusionist tradition that tends to resort to the archaeological record of different continents in the attempt to trace systematic cultural dispersions through stylistic analyses of the material productions, leading, in occasions, to rather far-fetched conclusions.
As we are dealing with a group of islands, the first settlers must evidently have arrived by sea, and archaeology suggests that, when they did so, they imported, not only domestic animals such as goats, sheep, pigs and dogs and cereals such as wheat, barley and lentils, but also a set of well defined socio-cultural practices that seem to have originated and been in use for a long period of time elsewhere.
Although the maritime currents surrounding the Canaries flow in a south-westerly and westerly direction (thus leading boats away into the Atlantic Ocean), there is enough evidence to prove that various Mediterranean civilisations in antiquity did know of the islands' existence and established contact with them (mainly Romans, Greeks and Phoenicians).
The indigenous population of the Canaries, therefore, did not develop in complete isolation. In fact, as of the 14th century, European disembarkations of Genovese, Castelian and Portuguese missionaries and pirates on Canarian shores became relatively common and the prehispanic populations were subjected to a long, continuous process of Westernisation before the colonisations.
Today, archaeological and ethnographic studies have led most scholars to accept the view that the pre-colonial population of the Canaries were descendants of North African Berber tribes who lived in the Atlas region and started arriving in the Canaries by sea c. 1000 BC .
Here we will find that people from West Afrika are still making it to the Canary Islands, then to prove the point even more when some natives from West Afrika try to sail against the currents towards Europe which results in failure causing them to get stranded in the CANARY ISLANDS. Next people who lived on the Canary Islands sailed from the Canary Islands to South America and the Caribbean during the last century, and we are still finding Eurocentrics trying to claim that the Olmec statues and the remains of some inhabitants with Dark skin and Broad features are Australians.
Eurocentric his-lie-storians are psychotic in my opinion. Here we find more Eurocentric malfeasance the original inhabitants of the Canary Islands were separate groups of people which is a established fact:
At the time of their discovery by Europeans, the Canary Islands were inhabited by a variety of indigenous communities. The pre-colonial population of the Canaries is generically referred to as Guanches, although, strictly speaking, Guanches were originally the inhabitants of Tenerife.
According to the chronicles, the inhabitants of Fuerteventura and Lanzarote were referred to as Maxos, Gran Canaria was inhabited by the Canarii, El Hierro by the Bimbaches, La Palma by the Auaritas and La Gomera by the Gomeros.
Despite the fact that inter-insular relations among the indigenous communities cannot be conclusively denied, evidence does seem to suggest that the interaction was relatively low and each island was populated by its own distinct socio-cultural groups .
They GROUPED the Canary Islands inhabitants under the name Guanches because the Guanches are described as blonde hair blue eyed natives, so by lumping all the other natives under Guanches a unknown person would think that All the people of Canary Islands were blonde hair blue eyes, which is misleading but can we expect Eurocentrics to do otherwise?
What happened on the Canary Islands illustrates a dark side to cultural contact that has been repeated in many cultural settings, in many different times and places. It also demonstrates well the intimate link between trade and commerce, disease, and warfare as agents of cultural change.
In the war to obtain new territory on which to grow sugar cane, the Spanish eradicated much of the native Guanche population. The subsequent process of cultural change ultimately eradicated the indigenous way of life of the remnant Guanche population .
The Canary Islands, colonised by the Spanish
The Guanches of Tenerife, Berber-related people originally from North Africa, had lost contact with the African mainland by the early centuries of the Common Era.
Over the following millennium, their neolithic culture evolved in isolation. Despite the simplicity of their weapons and tools, the Guanches resisted Spain’s military advances during most of 1400s.
In 1478, however, a newly united Spanish crown launched a sustained military campaign. The Guanches, unfamiliar with horses, were intimidated by the invaders’ mode of transport. Their local weapons were no match for Spain’s technologically superior military arsenal.
Two decades of war, along with exposure to the exotic diseases that the Spanish brought to Tenerife, decimated the indigenous community.
By 1496, the few Canary Islanders who had escaped death from disease and armed conflict were a subject people. In the years of colonisation that followed, the Spanish conquerors forcibly converted many of the survivors to Christianity and European customs through enslavement.
Other Guanches, surrounded by immigrant settlers, were assimilated into Spanish culture through inter-marriage with colonistsBy 1496, the few Canary Islanders who had escaped death from disease and armed conflict were a subject people. In the years of colonisation that followed, the Spanish conquerors forcibly converted many of the survivors to Christianity and European customs through enslavement. , and through the well-intentioned missionary work of Spanish priests. Today, nothing of the old Guanche culture remains. The process of annihilation through coercion and assimilation that unfolded in this isolated borderland of The Old World was a harbinger of things to come .
It helped define the shape that cultural contact between the Spanish and people of the Americas was to assume in coming decades.
Ask Sidirom how can people who have had their original history destroyed be expected to remember who passed by their Islands 2000+ years before?
Sidirom wrote:
quote: Yet no evidence of this claims or mention of this land in Al Idrisi's maps (shown above)
Afrikan Muslims and Songhai, Timbuktu traded with Arab Muslims that doesn’t mean they shared secrets with Arab Muslims.
For the record Timbuktu’s Library was Raided by Arabs and Europeans, numerous books were stolen and brought back to Europe, later on we notice the European Renaissance and Christopher Columbus begins to travel the New World, unlikely coincidence don’t you think? Afrikan Library’s were raided in Timbuktu and burned in Alexandria so don’t think for a moment that Afrikans didn’t report what they learned throughout history just realize that Afrikan History is well hidden from Humanity so don't assume that Afrikans didn’t record their history.
Sidirom wrote:
quote: Another strawman. COastal travel does not need such high levels of navigation. The Paleo-Indians would have hugged the coast in their travels.
This assumption is WRONG to travel from Australia to South America even with the idea of using the Coastal routes is illogical because strong Winds and Storms frequent the Coasts and getting caught up in a Storm surge will destroy both the boats and the inhabitants. Coastal route travel to South America is beyond Speculation no logical person would accept that for a minute because Strong burst of Oceanic Currents would sweep away the navigator without warning and the ability of turning around and sailing against Oceanic Currents wasn’t a technology possessed by Navigators over 3500 years ago. As for the Travel by stars you would be speculating that a journey lasting for Months would also require clear night skies over a period of Months which is even more absurd because Storms and Clouds form over Oceans first and cloudy night sky with dense fogs are quite frequent over Oceans. Science does not support Australians traveling from Australia to South America.
West Afrika is faster and the distant is shorter proving once again The DARK SKIN BROAD FEATURES that show up on the Olmec Statues and the numerous human remains point to Afrikans and not Australians.
Here stories of people from West Afrika that traveled by make shift boats to the CANARY ISLANDS which is about a 60 mile journey, next from the Canary Islands they could easily travel to South America. Though such a thought would be too intelligent of a theory for Eurocentrics to accept.
quote:Originally posted by Supercar: get the idea about the cosmological attachment of these sculptures. This image above, rather seems to show a figure bearing a structure more like the trunk of an elephant, wouldn't you say? [/QB]
Yes, or the probuscis of an insect. But unless you have evidence of an elephant pictured by itself, it is speculation
Posted by Nimr (Member # 10456) on :
quote:Originally posted by Hotep2u: Eurocentric’s are notorious for this type of silly comments such as luck carrying a whole ship somewhere, the foundation of ignorance begins when people ignore the simple facts due to arrogance towards others.
Nice try. Luck had nothing to do with their travel capacity. Only with them bumping into the Americas.
2005 marks the 600th anniversary of the first voyage to the Western Ocean by Zheng He, and many people both within and outside China have employed various forms to commemorate this great achievement in global navigational history. Of course, in this, not everyone's aims have been the same. Abroad, the retired British commander Gavin Menzies in his book "1421: the Year China Discovered the World" suggested that Zheng He's fleets had carried out the first circumnavigation of the world. His views were responded to by many people who were not very sure of their facts and were also subject to criticism by some scholars. After a number of critics had shown through clear historical facts that Menzies viewpoint was completely mistaken, at the end of 2005, someone advised that a recently-discovered ancient Chinese map could prove Menzies' claims and proclaimed that "history should be rewritten to show that Zheng He's fleets were the first to discover the entire world!" http://huangzhangjin.blogchina.com/3880436.html
It was learned that this map, named "Overall Map of the Geography of all under Heaven" had on its left panel the characters "Copied in the second month of spring in the kui-wei year of the Qian-long reign (1763) from a map of the barbarians from all under Heaven who offer tribute to the Court of the 16th year of Yong-le reign of the Ming dynasty, drawn by Mo Yi-tong." That is to say, this map was drawn by someone named Mo Yi-tong in 1763, and it was partially based on a "map of the barbarians from all under Heaven who offer tribute to the Court" drawn in the 16th year of the Yong-le reign (1418) during the Ming dynasty. The map has the following notation: "Those annotations without red borders are not from the original map." This means that all those with red borders were from the original "map of the barbarians from all under Heaven who offer tribute to the Court". On the "Overall map of the Geography of all under Heaven" there are found the words: "In the 13th year of the Yong-le reign (1415), I followed the senior envoy, the eunuch director Ma San-bao, and others to Bengal and other barbarian lands all the way to Hormuz and such countries, to read the royal proclamations and confer rewards. In the 16th year (1418), I returned to the capital." As these words have a red border, it can be assumed that these were on the original "map of the barbarians from all under Heaven who offer tribute to the Court". The words "I followed the senior envoy, the eunuch director Ma San-bao, and others to Bengal and other barbarian lands all the way to Hormuz and such countries, to read the royal proclamations and confer rewards" certainly refer to Zheng He's voyages to the Western Ocean. The "map of the barbarians from all under Heaven who offer tribute to the Court" was thus seemingly drawn on the basis of Zheng He's voyages to the Western Ocean, and the "Overall map of the Geography of all under Heaven" copied the "map of the barbarians from all under Heaven who offer tribute to the Court". Thus, the "Overall map of the Geography of all under Heaven" reflected the scope of the activities of Zheng He in his voyages to the Western Ocean. What surprises people is that the "Overall Map of the Geography of all under Heaven" is "an almost complete world map", "including not only all the major continents (as well as the South Pole, the North Pole and Greenland), with red-bordered annotations on both the American and Australian continents." From this we can conclude that Zheng He's fleets truly did conduct a global circumnavigation. These were the basic claims of the person who revealed details of this map.
This news attracted the attention of the global media and researchers, and we were all waiting to catch a glimpse of this ancient map, hoping that this newly-discovered and important historical source would powerfully promote the deeper development of Zheng He research. On 12 January 2006, we finally had more news: The British journal "The Economist" had published a colour photo of this map. It noted that the map was going to be unveiled in Beijing and London on 16 January.
Although the photograph of the "Overall Map of the Geography of all under Heaven" published in The Economist was not large, and the characters could not be clearly seen, the basic shape of the various continents of the globe could be observed very clearly. On closer examination, the map proved to be a great disappointment: Its origins lay certainly not in any Chinese map from the age of Zheng He, but rather in European world maps of the early 17th century.
The "Overall Map of the Geography of all under Heaven" is a transversal projection world map, and we only have to have a glance through the many world maps published in Europe from the 1630s to the middle of the 1700s, such as the world maps of the family of the Dutchman Johan Blaeu, to easily see that this is completely copied from a European map. The only difference is that on the European maps, Asia is placed on the right side and America is situated on the left side, whereas on this map China is in the centre. We know that at the end of the 16th century, when Matteo Ricci was translating maps published in Europe into Chinese-language maps, such a rearrangement was made for the first time. (It needs to be pointed out here that people generally believe that Ricci made this change to accord with the Chinese view that China lay at the centre of the world. However, Ricci himself said that all countries in drawing their maps place their own country at the centre of the map). This way of drawing maps initiated by Ricci was followed by later missionaries who came to China, such as the "Complete map of the 10,000 countries" by Jules Aleni (1582-1649) and the "Complete Map of the Earth" by Francois Sambiasi (1582-1649). It became a model, extending even up until today.
In 1760, three years before the "Overall Map of the Geography of all under Heaven" was drawn in 1763, the French missionary Michel Benoist (1715-1774) drew his "Complete Map of the Earth" as a present for the Qian-long emperor in commemorations of his 50 years on the throne. Somewhat earlier, the Belgian missionary Ferdinand Verbiest (1623-1688) had also drawn a "Complete Map of the Earth". These two maps spread quite widely and copies of them are still available to us today. Of these two world maps, that of Benoist copied the maps published in Europe exactly, with Asia on the right of the map and America on the left. However, the world map drawn by Verbiest was like the world map done by Ricci. The form of the "Overall Map of the Geography of all under Heaven" is identical with that of Verbiest's "Complete Map of the Earth", with the exception of some differences in the area of the two poles and Australia. This can only mean that the map on which the "Overall Map of the Geography of all under Heaven" was based was a more accurate European map later than Verbeist's.
From a cartographic point of view, there were three main preconditions for drawing a map like the "Overall Map of the Geography of all under Heaven". 1) There must be a belief that the world is a globe and not a flat plane. 2) In order to represent the globe as a flat plane world map, there needs to be knowledge of and methods for projection. 3) There must have been a very clear knowledge of the actual geographical situations of the various continents of the globe, or else they could not have been represented so accurately on the "Overall Map of the Geography of all under Heaven". In the history of Western cartography, we can find the progress of the development of these three preconditions. The "Overall Map of the Geography of all under Heaven" reflects the results of the development of European cartography, and particularly the major achievements following European overseas explorations and the development of cartography.
Conversely, in the China of Zheng He's time, these three major preconditions did not exist. We only need to compare the "Overall Map of the Geography of all under Heaven" with the "Navigation Maps of Zheng He" to know this. No only in the time of Zheng he, but actually throughout China's history (excluding those maps influenced by Ricci and other Western missionaries), there is no map which portrays the world as a globe and projects this globe onto a flat plane. The traditional geographers in China could not produce a map like the "Overall Map of the Geography of all under Heaven". The map does not belong to an ancient Chinese cartographic tradition, but rather to a European cartographic tradition.
Of course, some might at a stretch claim that even though in the extant Chinese texts we have not found precursors and successors of the "Overall Map of the Geography of all under Heaven", that this does not mean that there was no source for these in the past, and it is completely possible that these may all have been lost. And also that it is completely possible that soldiers who accompanied Zheng he's distant voyages might have included some geniuses who discovered extremely advanced map projection methods and drew these maps. And that the accuracy of the shape of the continents on the "Overall Map of the Geography of all under Heaven" shows that not only were Zheng He's fleets the first to circumnavigate the globe, but that they also conducted geo-surveys of a huge scale. As the "Overall Map of the Geography of all under Heaven" clearly states the "map of the barbarians from all under Heaven who offer tribute to the Court" on which it is based came from the actual voyages of Zheng He. Thus, the key here is to determine whether or not the "Overall Map of the Geography of all under Heaven" has any links with the Zheng He voyages. If this map clearly has links with the Zheng He voyages, then the scientific history of China and the rest of the world needs to be rewritten, as must even the final chapters of the history of human civilization. If the map is not linked with Zheng He, we cannot ascribe the map to Zheng He, and we can assign the account of Zheng He travelling around the globe to the realm of fairytale. In brief, if the 1418 map truly existed, Menzies' 1421 story of China discovering the world in 1421 will be supported!
The "map of the barbarians from all under Heaven who offer tribute to the Court" on which the "Overall Map of the Geography of all under Heaven" was based no longer exists, and we have no knowledge of its original form. At the top of the "Overall Map of the Geography of all under Heaven" are the words: "Those annotations without red borders are not from the original map." This means that all those with red borders were from the original "map of the barbarians from all under Heaven who offer tribute to the Court". This is an essential pivot intimately tying together the "Overall Map of the Geography of all under Heaven", the map of the barbarians from all under Heaven who offer tribute to the Court" and Zheng He. It is also the only thread for us if we want to resolve the crucial issues. Although the annotations which have been revealed so far are not numerous, we only need to take one example to be able to powerfully affirm that that important statement on the "Overall Map of the Geography of all under Heaven" that "Those annotations without red borders are not from the original map" is not correct, or at least show that some of those within red borders could not have been on any "map of the barbarians from all under Heaven who offer tribute to the Court". This example comes from a space between Asia and Europe and above there is an annotation within a red border. "The people in this place have deep-set, round eyes and wrap their head in a cloth. They have loose clothes and long trousers. When women go out, they must cover their faces, with offenders being punished." In eastern Europe, there is another annotation in a red border which notes: "The people here all worship God (shang-di) and their religion is called 'Jing'."
Even those with only a little understanding of history will know that the term "shang-di", which is used by Chinese Christians as the name of God, appeared long ago in pre-Qin (pre 220 BCE) Chinese works. For example, it appears in the "Book of Odes" (Zhou-song: zhi-jing) At the end of the 16th century, after Matteo Ricci and other Western missionaries came to China, in order to propagate their religion to the Chinese, they had to find a Chinese term by which to translate the name for their highest power (in Latin: Deus). They investigated all sorts of possibilities, first using a phonetic representation -translating "Deus" as "Duo-si". However, it was difficult for Chinese people to accept this method of representation. After the missionaries became more familiar with Classical Chinese texts, they found some terms in the Confucian texts which were very suitable -"tian-zhu" (Lit: Lord of Heaven) and "shang-di" (Lit: The Emperor on High). In his "The Real Purport of the Lord of Heaven", Ricci clearly stated: "Our Lord of Heaven is the Shang-di of the ancient texts" and "Reading the ancient texts, one comes to understand that 'shang-di' and 'tian-zhu' are but different names for the one thing." Of course, what "shang-di" meant to Chinese people prior to the Qin dynasty (pre 200 BCE) and what it meant to the European Christians in using it to represent Deus, was completely different. That is to say, the use of the term "shang-di" to represent the Christian God began at the end of the 16th century and prior to this, the correlation between this term and this concept did not exist. The use of the term "shang-di" on the Eastern Europe portion of the "Overall Map of the Geography of all under Heaven" shows that this annotation could not have derived from a map of the period of Zheng He. During the Tang dynasty, when the Nestorian sect of Christianity entered China (in the 7th century CE), the Chinese called the religion the "Jing religion" In the 9th century, when Emperor Wu-zong (814-846 CE) of the Tang dynasty persecuted Buddhists, Nestorianism was also harshly attacked and it gradually withered away.
During the Yuan dynasty (1206-1368 CE), Christianity in China was called the "Ye-li-ke-wen" (Mongol term: Erkeun or Arkaim) religion. It was only in about 1625, when the "Stele of the Spread of Da-qin (Eastern Roman Empire or Syria) Nestorianism in China" was discovered in Xi-an, that people first knew that Christianity had been in China during the Tang dynasty. After the discovery of this stele, it was given great attention by the Western missionaries in China as well as European scholars and a great amount of research was conducted upon it because it proved the long-term existence of Christianity in China. That is to say, the identification of Nestorianism as a form of Christianity was something which happened after 1625. At the time of Zheng He, Nestorianism had long ceased to exist, and certainly no-one knew that the Nestorianism of the Tang dynasty was a form of Christianity. This proves that the annotation "The people here all worship God (shang-di) and their religion is called 'Jing'" found on the "Overall Map of the Geography of all under Heaven" could only have been created after 1625, and certainly could not have come from the age of Zheng He.
The note on the "Overall Map of the Geography of all under Heaven" says that "Those annotations without red borders are not from the original map". However, through our analysis of the annotation "The people here all worship God (shang-di) and their religion is called 'Jing'", we have shown that the suggestion that this was from the original map cannot be accurate. Thus there are annotations in red borders on the "Overall Map of the Geography of all under Heaven" which actually did not come from any "map of the barbarians from all under Heaven who offer tribute to the Court" of the Zheng He period, but are instead from some time after the end of the 16th century. The statement "Those annotations without red borders are not from the original map" on the "Overall Map of the Geography of all under Heaven" is not something which can be believed. If the "Overall Map of the Geography of all under Heaven" was directly copied by Mo Yi-tong from an original "map of the barbarians from all under Heaven who offer tribute to the Court", the annotation "Those annotations without red borders are not from the original map" shows that Mo Yi-tong was deceitful. If Mo Yi-tong was just copying a "map of the barbarians from all under Heaven who offer tribute to the Court" drawn by someone else, then the annotation "Those annotations without red borders are not from the original map" would have been added by that person and Mo Yi-tong was deceived. To sum up, the annotation "The people here all worship God (shang-di) and their religion is called 'Jing'" is a cast-iron proof that the "Overall Map of the Geography of all under Heaven" has nothing to do with Zheng He. The sub-text of the statement is that Christianity is a belief in various parts of the world and China should accept Christianity as its religion. Such an idea would certainly have come from the pen of a European missionary.
We can see in the few annotations on the "Overall Map of the Geography of all under Heaven" which have been revealed the vestiges of European missionaries in China. On the west coast of America, there is an annotation which reads: "The local people of this place have black-red skin and on their head and at their waist they wear feathers. They are practiced in cannibalism." One just has to look at Aleni's "World Atlas" ( "Zhi-fang wai-ji" (of 1623 -gw) which notes of North America that "The men and women all wear feathers and capes of tiger and bear fur" of look at the "Map of the Complete Geography of all Under Heaven" where it is noted on the southern part of Africa that "The skin of the people here is the colour of black lacquer, their teeth are white, their lips red and their hair curly." Or one can look at Aleni's "World Atlas" where it is noted that "There are many countries here. The people are all of variants of black colour. As you move northwards, they become lighter, and as you move southwards they become darker, with some even the colour of lacquer. However, their teeth and eyes are extremely white. Here, as in Verbeist's (1623-1688) "Illustrated Explanation of Geography", one can see similar types of descriptions.
Our analysis of the "Overall Map of the Geography of all under Heaven" indicates that it is in the form of a European map, with annotations similar to those of the Western missionaries who came to China. There is no evidence of anything to do with Zheng He. We believe that, following the complete unveiling of the "Overall Map of the Geography of all under Heaven", this assessment will be completely verified.
Carbon 14 dating can only determine the age of the ink and paper. If this is indeed a map from the Qian-long period, it will be good news as many maps from that time have been destroyed by natural and man-made disasters. The non-historical nature of the annotations within red borders cannot but cause us to have grave doubts about this map. The map not only reflects the influence of Western culture on China after the great geographical discoveries, but also a proof that only a very few advanced Chinese people studied Western culture at that time. In the long stream of Chinese history, what is evident by its lack is this spirit of actively studying those cultures which are different from ours. If we use this valuable map to weave a modern fairy-tale about "Zheng He discovering the world" it will be a violation of the real significance of this map, contrary to the spirit of Zheng he's voyages to the Western Ocean and also contrary to the global trends of our times.
quote:Salsassin has never been sailing before that's why Salsassin won't end the ignorant comments.
Nice try. While I am not a sailor myself i come from a family of sailors.I have gone sailing with my mother, my grandfather and my uncle who was a sailing instructor.
quote:To those who don’t know the History of the Canary Islands please read because the inhabitants we see in the Canary Islands today aren’t All the original inhabitants nor can we expect that they retained their history after being Europeanized when the Spaniards arrived.
Nice try. If the Guanches were transatlantic travelers, we would have found Linguistic evidence in the Americas and if they returned we would have found evidence of the Americas in the Canaries.
quote:In fact, as of the 14th century, European disembarkations of Genovese, Castelian and Portuguese missionaries and pirates on Canarian shores became relatively common and the prehispanic populations were subjected to a long, continuous process of Westernisation before the colonisations.
Yet the Portuguese did not know of the Canary Current.
quote:Here we will find that people from West Afrika are still making it to the Canary Islands, then to prove the point even more when some natives from West Afrika try to sail against the currents towards Europe which results in failure causing them to get stranded in the CANARY ISLANDS. Next people who lived on the Canary Islands sailed from the Canary Islands to South America and the Caribbean during the last century
And none of those people were Mande Nice try.
quote:and we are still finding Eurocentrics trying to claim that the Olmec statues and the remains of some inhabitants with Dark skin and Broad features are Australians.
Not my problem you can't deal with evidence.
quote:Despite the fact that inter-insular relations among the indigenous communities cannot be conclusively denied, evidence does seem to suggest that the interaction was relatively low and each island was populated by its own distinct socio-cultural groups .
They GROUPED the Canary Islands inhabitants under the name Guanches because the Guanches are described as blonde hair blue eyed natives, so by lumping all the other natives under Guanches a unknown person would think that All the people of Canary Islands were blonde hair blue eyes, which is misleading but can we expect Eurocentrics to do otherwise?
Funny how no mention of any Mande people ever occurs.
quote:The Guanches of Tenerife, Berber-related people originally from North Africa, had lost contact with the African mainland by the early centuries of the Common Era.
Over the following millennium, their neolithic culture evolved in isolation. Despite the simplicity of their weapons and tools, the Guanches resisted Spain’s military advances during most of 1400s.
In 1478, however, a newly united Spanish crown launched a sustained military campaign. The Guanches, unfamiliar with horses, were intimidated by the invaders’ mode of transport. Their local weapons were no match for Spain’s technologically superior military arsenal.
Two decades of war, along with exposure to the exotic diseases that the Spanish brought to Tenerife, decimated the indigenous community.
By 1496, the few Canary Islanders who had escaped death from disease and armed conflict were a subject people. In the years of colonisation that followed, the Spanish conquerors forcibly converted many of the survivors to Christianity and European customs through enslavement.
Other Guanches, surrounded by immigrant settlers, were assimilated into Spanish culture through inter-marriage with colonistsBy 1496, the few Canary Islanders who had escaped death from disease and armed conflict were a subject people. In the years of colonisation that followed, the Spanish conquerors forcibly converted many of the survivors to Christianity and European customs through enslavement. , and through the well-intentioned missionary work of Spanish priests. Today, nothing of the old Guanche culture remains. The process of annihilation through coercion and assimilation that unfolded in this isolated borderland of The Old World was a harbinger of things to come .
It helped define the shape that cultural contact between the Spanish and people of the Americas was to assume in coming decades.
Yes colonialism is terrible. Completely irrelevant to the discussion. Typical feeding to emotions instead of logic.
quote:Ask Sidirom how can people who have had their original history destroyed be expected to remember who passed by their Islands 2000+ years before?
Nice try. No archeological evidence either. And the guanches had writing before colonization. Where is the evidence?
quote:Afrikan Muslims and Songhai, Timbuktu traded with Arab Muslims that doesn’t mean they shared secrets with Arab Muslims.{/quote]
Again, Nice try. But Al-Idrisi was Moor and was familiar with African Muslims.
[quote]For the record Timbuktu’s Library was Raided by Arabs and Europeans, numerous books were stolen and brought back to Europe, later on we notice the European Renaissance and Christopher Columbus begins to travel the New World, unlikely coincidence don’t you think?
Another 'Alexandria' type claim. I will be entertained when Timbuktu analysis shows your speculations false. The European Renaissance had to do with the the Crusades and the Moorish occupation. Contact with Muslims directly. No robbery of their libraries.
quote:Afrikan Library’s were raided in Timbuktu and burned in Alexandria so don’t think for a moment that Afrikans didn’t report what they learned throughout history just realize that Afrikan History is well hidden from Humanity so don't assume that Afrikans didn’t record their history.
I'm sure you will claim all evidence is hidden.
quote:This assumption is WRONG to travel from Australia to South America even with the idea of using the Coastal routes is illogical because strong Winds and Storms frequent the Coasts and getting caught up in a Storm surge will destroy both the boats and the inhabitants. Coastal route travel to South America is beyond Speculation no logical person would accept that for a minute because Strong burst of Oceanic Currents would sweep away the navigator without warning and the ability of turning around and sailing against Oceanic Currents wasn’t a technology possessed by Navigators over 3500 years ago. As for the Travel by stars you would be speculating that a journey lasting for Months would also require clear night skies over a period of Months which is even more absurd because Storms and Clouds form over Oceans first and cloudy night sky with dense fogs are quite frequent over Oceans. Science does not support Australians traveling from Australia to South America.
One, it is not from Australia, but from South Asia. The same people traveled to Australia. But they didn;t travel to Australia then to South America. And you are full of it. There are just as many storms in the Atlantic. And no place to land.
Furthermore, go study how Vikings traveled and you will be proven wrong again.
quote: West Afrika is faster and the distant is shorter proving once again The DARK SKIN BROAD FEATURES that show up on the Olmec Statues and the numerous human remains point to Afrikans and not Australians.
Your wishful thinking will not change the fact that there is way too much evidence pointing to lack of contact by your supposed mande.
Do some more searches to see the deaths as well. And Rubber boats are not makeshift. And finally they are traveling from MOROCCO which is not a Mande region. And no evidence of your claims with the Guanche.
Again. Speculation is all and nice, but where is your evidence of actual events and not possibilities.
Posted by Supercar (Member # 6477) on :
quote:Originally posted by Nimr: Yes, or the probuscis of an insect. But unless you have evidence of an elephant pictured by itself, it is speculation
"Proboscis of an insect"...you can't be serious about that?! What insect has a trunk or proboscis for a nose [as it is obvious that the figures have a mouth], which is clearly what the depicted figures show.
What kind of insect would carry a "proboscis" that looks remotely like this [including curvature in such manner]?...
Posted by Nimr (Member # 10456) on :
I was refering to the second one. The first one looks like a tapir. The second one looks like a hooked nose that could be from tons of inspiration. No elephant has that face either.
Butterfly
Again. It doesn't take much to create imagery from what existed there without need of claims of elephants.
But hey, who knows, maybe oral history brought memories of their ancestors hunting mastodons.
Posted by Supercar (Member # 6477) on :
quote:Originally posted by Nimr: I was refering to the second one. The first one looks like a tapir.
The first image actually shows a broken or chipped off trunk or poboscis.
quote:Nimr: The second one looks like a hooked nose that could be from tons of inspiration. No elephant has that face either.
Given the shape of the structure of proboscis, it is quite obvious what animal has had to have provided inspiration. It certainly doesn't relate to insects, as the example of that of your butterfly image below...
...and no tapir that I'm aware of, actually have a snout or proboscis that long, enough to coil in that manner.
quote:Nmr: But hey, who knows, maybe oral history brought memories of their ancestors hunting mastodons.
Now, mastodons cannot be ruled out as a possibility, being that they resembled elephants. Bear in mind though, mastodons only lived in the region until about the early Holocene or so. So any cultural expressions involving such a creature, can only be explained by the passing of legends on the animal from generation to generation, which would also mean that such stories would have been accompanied by pictorial demonstrations of the animal. This would also imply that this hunted animal had attained the status of a notable cultural symbolism, enough to be passed on from one generation to another. Should this be the case, one would expect to come across various artistic expressions associated with mastadons in the periods leading to the Olmec and classic eras. Has any such material been uncovered to date?
Posted by Nimr (Member # 10456) on :
quote:Originally posted by Supercar: The first image actually shows a broken or chipped off trunk or poboscis.
Could be, not all are curved though
If you look at an actual statues, you see the length they gave it
quote:Given the shape of the structure of proboscis, it is quite obvious what animal has had to have provided inspiration. It certainly doesn't relate to insects, as the example of that of your butterfly image below...
Science fiction shows us how creative we can be with the images we see in daily life. You think Mayans couldn't be as creative?
quote:
...and no tapir that I'm aware of, actually have a snout or proboscis that long, enough to coil in that manner.
I have seen tapis curl their noses enough. Add a little exageration and voala. But again, if you can show me evidence of an elephant, and not a depiction of a God with an abstract feature...
quote:Now, mastodons cannot be ruled out as a possibility, being that they resembled elephants. Bear in mind though, mastodons only lived in the region until about the early Holocene or so. So any cultural expressions involving such a creature, can only be explained by the passing of legends on the animal from generation to generation, which would also mean that such stories would have been accompanied by pictorial demonstrations of the animal. This would also imply that this hunted animal had attained the status of a notable cultural symbolism, enough to be passed on from one generation to another. Should this be the case, one would expect to come across various artistic expressions associated with mastadons in the periods leading to the Olmec and classic eras. Has any such material been uncovered to date? [/QB]
Not that I know of. That is why I tend to rule out elephants and Mastodons.
Posted by Supercar (Member # 6477) on :
quote:Nimr: Could be, not all are curved though
The probability of that broken portion being a trunk or proboscis, is quite high, given that most depictions show the Rain god with the trunk, with its end either raised upward, or downward.
Also, note that the top image shows the face with a clearly broken proboscis, where no sign of nostrils on either end, and the height of the snout starts near the eye lids or the forhead, with a hook/convex curve and then extends right into the mouth. The image below, on the other hand, does show nostrils on either side of the nose, and the nose itself starts below the eyelid, notwithstanding the frontal view, and doesn’t extend into the mouth.
The first photo clearly shows a side profile of the face, with its eyes, trunk and mouth with teeth showing. The second image appears a bit more abstract, and less apparent; it may well be an manifestation of the same god. Even then, it appears that the trunk here have been badly chipped off, and hence, not showing the complete length of the snout. Notice the lowermost snout/trunk makes this obvious, with the nose chipped of from where the curvature just begins to pick up. Look closely, open your mind, and you’ll see it.
quote:Nimr: Science fiction shows us how creative we can be with the images we see in daily life. You think Mayans couldn't be as creative?
Obviously creativeness is what allowed them to integrate elephant trunks onto humanoid figures. But for the Mayans, the elephant trunk would have to symbolic connotation to it, that has nothing to do with wild entertainment. For goodness sake, these are manifestations of the Rain deity. The elephant, and perhaps its close cousins, use the trunk for channeling water, amongst other things. Surely if the ancient Americans were familiar with these creatures, they would have known this about elephants or their relatives. It is no accident that in many of these manifestations of the Rain deity(s), the normally curved trunks raise upward, perhaps meant to symbolize the spouting of water, or lowered downward, meant to symbolize appreciation for the deliverance of water or rain.
Johannessen, Carl L. Professor Emeritus of Geography, University of Oregon, field research in Latin America and Asia, crops plants and Chicken.
"The Idea of Elephants Diffused Early to the Americas: Elephant images are found in sculptures and in writings in Mexico, Belize, Honduras, and Guatemala.
The oldest elephant head was sculptured on top of a human form during the age of the Olmec culture and found in the Huasteca of Mexico, who speak a Mayan language.
The most complete elephant shape is from the Honduran archeological ruin at Copan in Stela B. The elephant's trunk is part of the Rain God Chac (in Mayan) and Tlaloc (in Nahuatle) in Belize.
It is found in major concentrations as part of the face of the Rain God in the Puuc region of Yucatan, where they really did need the rains. The trunk curves or recurves in various ways that are elephantine and not of a Macaw as has been sometimes claimed. The Codex shows an elephant, trunk upraised, spouting water that falls as rain for the maize crop."
From an Mexican/American tourist site:
“The Mayans depended on rain water they saved in cisterns (chultunes), but as this region has very little rainfall, the rain god Chac was of prime importance to their lives. That is why there are innumerable masks of Chac on their temples, the elephant-nosed god who wields the lightning bolt which represented rain. The king who probably reigned in the 10th century named himself Lord Chac, as revealed by steles at Uxmal. Water does lie in secretive underground rivers approached through caverns or wells called cenotes. Some claim there is a vast network beneath the earth which the Maya used to escape the Spanish who wanted to impress them into servitude.”
quote: Nimr: I have seen tapis curl their noses enough. Add a little exageration and voala. But again, if you can show me evidence of an elephant, and not a depiction of a God with an abstract feature…
Show me tapirs with quite long, much less flexible as the trunks in the following images:
Show me a tapir, whose snout can remind anyone of anything that channels water, suck it in or spout it! LOL.
As a bonus…
Posted by Supercar (Member # 6477) on :
quote:Nimr: But again, if you can show me evidence of an elephant, and not a depiction of a God with an abstract feature…
A faithful rendition of the image below it, here is a repro:
Clearly a trunk, with tusks on its side. In the photo below, the image is duplicated on the other side. The repro seems to attempt “restoring” the destroyed portions of the human figure above the elephant-like creature. Closer inspection of the photo, shows that there are indeed human figures, as the repro attempts to depict them, at least to the extent that, a portion of one of the defaced human bodies shows [the foot]; The artist of the repro, attempts to use his/her imagination to complete the rest of the image from where the defacements take off.
Another repro:
Some sources on info related to elephants or their cousins in MesoAmerica...
A Note on the Elephant in America, and The Mammoth in American Epigraphy.
Other mentions of MesoAmerican artistic renditions of elephant-like creatures:
Johannessen, Carl L. Professor Emeritus of Geography, University of Oregon, field research in Latin America and Asia, crops plants and Chicken.
"The Idea of Elephants Diffused Early to the Americas: Elephant images are found in sculpturess and in writings in Mexico, Belize, Honduras, and Guatemala. The oldest elephant head was sculptured on top of a human form during the age of the Olmec culture and found in the Huasteca of Mexico, who speak a Mayan language. The most complete elephant shape is from the Honduran archeological ruin at Copan in Stela B. The elephant's trunk is part of the Rain God Chac (in Mayan) and Tlaloc (in Nahuatle) in Belize. It is found in major concentrations as part of the face of the Rain God in the Puuc region of Yucatan, where they really did need the rains. The trunk curves or recurves in various ways that are elephantine and not of a Macaw as has been sometimes claimed. The Codex shows an elephant, trunk upraised, spouting water that falls as rain for the maize crop."
How many images does it have to take, before it sinks in? Moreover, I’ve provided references on this matter, including the “elephant-like” trunk of the Rain deities. Where are your scholarly references that point to the “tapir-like”, “insect-like”, or “mouse nose-like” or what have you, proboscis of the Rain deities, much less, the manner in which the proboscis of these creatures could possibly remind any decent intelligent being of “water” ? If you think about it, the burden of supporting claims leans more towards your end, than mine.
Posted by Nimr (Member # 10456) on :
quote:Originally posted by Supercar: The probability of that broken portion being a trunk or proboscis, is quite high, given that most depictions show the Rain god with the trunk, with its end either raised upward, or downward.
Again, an assumption of a trunk. Trunks are made by fusing the nose and the lip together. All those images also have the upper lip. LIke I showed in a prior image, Tlaloc shows a snake coming out his nose. It also shows many with teeth that are not like any of an elephant. Furthermore, not one tusk is represented. Again, speculation on trunks is fine and dandy. Show me a full elephant in their art. They represented plenty of other animals in full body.
quote:Obviously creativeness is what allowed them to integrate elephant trunks onto humanoid figures. But for the Mayans, the elephant trunk would have to symbolic connotation to it, that has nothing to do with wild entertainment. For goodness sake, these are manifestations of the Rain deity. The elephant, and perhaps its close cousins, use the trunk for channeling water, amongst other things. Surely if the ancient Americans were familiar with these creatures, they would have known this about elephants or their relatives. It is no accident that in many of these manifestations of the Rain deity(s), the normally curved trunks raise upward, perhaps meant to symbolize the spouting of water, or lowered downward, meant to symbolize appreciation for the deliverance of water or rain.
Again, speculation is great. But unless you can show that in Mayan mythology, all you are doing is using your creativity for speculation, much like the mayans used theirs to create fantastic looking gods. "Chac was the ancient Maya god of rain and lightning. He was one of the earliest and most worshipped gods among the all the people of mesoamerica. Chac was often depicted with a serpentine axe in his hand a metaphor for lightning, and his body was scaled and reptilian."
So who is to say the water snakes aren't the inspiration? fangs, but no tusks.
"The Mayan god of fertility and agriculture, the one who sends thunder and rain. Later he appears as one of the Bacabs, a group of four protective deities, where Chac is the personification of the east. The center of his cult was in Chichen Itzan (Yucatan). He is the Tlaloc of the Aztec and the rain god Cocijo of the Zapotec. Chac is portrayed with two curling fangs, a long turned-up nose and tears streaming from his wide eyes. His hair was made up of a tangle of knots.
Chac was beneficent and a friend of man. He taught them how to grow vegetables and was the protector of their cornfields. The Maya appealed to him for rain by means of particular ceremonies by which the men would settle outside the village and adhere to strict observance of fasting and sexual abstinence. The animal associated with Chac is the frog, because it signals the coming of rain by its croaking.
He is also known as Ah Hoya ("he who urinates"), Ah Tzenul ("he who gives food to others"), and Hopop Caan ("he who lights up the sky")"
Another depiction of Chac He is a serpent. "In Maya mythology, Chac (sometimes spelled "Chaac") was the god of rain and thunder, and important as a fertility and agriculture god. Like some other Maya gods, Chac was sometimes thought of as one god, and other times as 4 separate gods based in the four cardinal directions: "Chac Xib Chac", Red Chac of the East; "Sac Xib Chac", White North Chac; "Ek Xib Chac" Black West Chac", and "Kan Xib Chac", Yellow East Chac.
In art, he was sometimes depicted as an old man with some reptilian or amphibian features, with fangs and a long nose, sometimes tears coming from his eyes (symbolizing rain)[b] and carrying an axe (which caused thunder). He was associated with the frog. Other Maya terms used to refer to Chac include Ah Tzenul, ("he who gives food away to other people"), Hopop Caan ("he who lights the sky"), and [b]Ah Hoya ("he who urinates").Names for the Rain God in other Mesoamerican cultures include Cocijo (Zapotec) and Tlaloc (Aztec).
While most of the ancient Mesoamerican gods are long forgotten by the descendants of the original inhabitants today, prayers to the Chaacs, most generally as a routine and not in times of drought, are documented in Yucatán as continuing into the 21st century among nominal Christian Maya farmers. Anthropologists have documented other prayers still in use which are identical to pre-Columbian prayers to Chac except that the name Chac has been replaced by that of Saint Thomas.Chac should not be confused with the Maya-Toltec figure Chac Mool. "
So much for The trunk being used for spraying water idea.
quote:[i]"The Idea of Elephants Diffused Early to the Americas: Elephant images are found in sculptures and in writings in Mexico, Belize, Honduras, and Guatemala. [list=A] [*]The oldest elephant head was sculptured on top of a human form during the age of the Olmec culture and found in the Huasteca of Mexico, who speak a Mayan language. [*]The most complete elephant shape is from the Honduran archeological ruin at Copan in Stela B. The elephant's trunk is part of the Rain God Chac (in Mayan) and Tlaloc (in Nahuatle) in Belize. [*]It is found in major concentrations as part of the face of the Rain God in the Puuc region of Yucatan, where they really did need the rains. The trunk curves or recurves in various ways that are elephantine and not of a Macaw as has been sometimes claimed. The Codex shows an elephant, trunk upraised, spouting water that falls as rain for the maize crop."
Again, speculation. Feel free to show the trunk spouting water. That a professor speculates, makes no difference.
quote:“The Mayans depended on rain water they saved in cisterns (chultunes), but as this region has very little rainfall, the rain god Chac was of prime importance to their lives. That is why there are innumerable masks of Chac on their temples, the elephant-nosed god who wields the lightning bolt which represented rain. The king who probably reigned in the 10th century named himself Lord Chac, as revealed by steles at Uxmal. Water does lie in secretive underground rivers approached through caverns or wells called cenotes. Some claim there is a vast network beneath the earth which the Maya used to escape the Spanish who wanted to impress them into servitude.”
Again,moder european interpretion on Ancient American tradition. But none of the mythology corroborates these western perceptions.
quote:Show me tapirs with quite long, much less flexible as the trunks in the following images:
Don't have to. Ican show you plenty of snakes and tapirs full represented in their artwork. Enough to know they could be used as inspiration.
quote:Show me a tapir, whose snout can remind anyone of anything that channels water, suck it in or spout it! LOL.
First show me any depiction of such activity. No image of the mayans shows it.
quote:
Show me an elephant with those teeth, and no tusks.
"The tapir's nose is long because it's adapted so that he can have a good smelling sense and reach leaves which are high above the ground. The tapir's snout helps it sniff its way through the forest and is used much like an elephant's trunk to pull vegetation to the mouth. The tapirs can also use their nose as a snorkel while they are under water."
In other words, grasping power. In other words the ability to manipulate enough to inspire someone who sees it.
Posted by Nimr (Member # 10456) on :
quote:A faithful rendition of the image below it, here is a repro
Why use a reproduction when you have the original?
quote:Clearly a trunk, with tusks on its side. In the photo below, the image is duplicated on the other side. The repro seems to attempt “restoring” the destroyed portions of the human figure above the elephant-like creature. Closer inspection of the photo, shows that there are indeed human figures, as the repro attempts to depict them, at least to the extent that, a portion of one of the defaced human bodies shows [the foot]; The artist of the repro, attempts to use his/her imagination to complete the rest of the image from where the defacements take off.
Clearly, like the artist, you are speculating. It could be, just as much as it could not be. You need more evidence.
quote:How many images does it have to take, before it sinks in? Moreover, I’ve provided references on this matter, including the “elephant-like” trunk of the Rain deities. Where are your scholarly references that point to the “tapir-like”, “insect-like”, or “mouse nose-like” or what have you, proboscis of the Rain deities, much less, the manner in which the proboscis of these creatures could possibly remind any decent intelligent being of “water” ? If you think about it, the burden of supporting claims leans more towards your end, than mine. [/QB]
Again, speculation. And all you have provided. Is a professor of Geography's opinion. Try an Anthropologist studying the Mayans or an Archeologist who has found something more convincing than trunks. And no tusks. Tusks don't come out of the neck, Nice try.
Here you go, another speculation on an Elephant. Posted by Supercar (Member # 6477) on :
quote:Originally posted by Nimr: Again, an assumption of a trunk. Trunks are made by fusing the nose and the lip together. All those images also have the upper lip.
Lol. Elephants a trunk for a nose, and then, they have a mouth. This is a no brainer!
quote:Nimr: LIke I showed in a prior image, Tlaloc shows a snake coming out his nose. It also shows many with teeth that are not like any of an elephant.
Show us the image of a snake coming out of Tlaloc's nose, such that it remotely resembles anything like the masks/faces with proboscis for a nose!
quote:Nimr: Furthermore, not one tusk is represented. Again, speculation on trunks is fine and dandy.
Don't need to; there are caricatures or humanoid deities. Besides, at least one image seems to show the tusk, i.e., the Stela B. Really doesn't concern me what you consider speculation, but what you can present as an alternative logical explanation; to this point, you haven't provided any.
quote:Nimr: Show me a full elephant in their art. They represented plenty of other animals in full body.
Already have.
quote:Nimr: Again, speculation is great. But unless you can show that in Mayan mythology, all you are doing is using your creativity for speculation, much like the mayans used theirs to create fantastic looking gods.
Not necessarily my viewpoint; it is found within scholarly circles, and I've presented an example of one. And what more do I need, than your own reference...
"Chac was the ancient Maya god of rain and lightning. He was one of the earliest and most worshipped gods among the all the people of mesoamerica. Chac was often depicted with a serpentine axe in his hand [not for a nose] a metaphor for lightning, and his body was scaled and reptilian."
...sometimes common sense, is what it takes, for things to start kicking in.
quote:Nimr: So who is to say the water snakes aren't the inspiration? fangs, but no tusks.
Water snake for what symbolism, in association with delivering water?...and where are the heads of the snake? Elephant trunks are clearly notable for sucking, and spouting water. The trunks on Stela B, for example, are snakes...yeah right!
Turning to your own citations, that were provided without sources:
"The Mayan god of fertility and agriculture, the one who sends thunder and rain. Later he appears as one of the Bacabs, a group of four protective deities, where Chac is the personification of the east. The center of his cult was in Chichen Itzan (Yucatan). He is the Tlaloc of the Aztec and the rain god Cocijo of the Zapotec. Chac is portrayed with two curling fangs, a long turned-up nose and tears streaming from his wide eyes. His hair was made up of a tangle of knots.
Chac was beneficent and a friend of man. He taught them how to grow vegetables and was the protector of their cornfields. The Maya appealed to him for rain by means of particular ceremonies by which the men would settle outside the village and adhere to strict observance of fasting and sexual abstinence. The animal associated with Chac is the frog, because it signals the coming of rain by its croaking.
He is also known as Ah Hoya ("he who urinates"), Ah Tzenul ("he who gives food to others"), and Hopop Caan ("he who lights up the sky")"
quote:Nimr: Another depiction of Chac He is a serpent.
Yes, the entire body as a serpant in "water", not to mention that this serpant has a head. What has this to do with faces/masks with proboscis for a nose? Zip!
More of your own references...
"In Maya mythology, Chac (sometimes spelled "Chaac") was the god of rain and thunder, and important as a fertility and agriculture god. Like some other Maya gods, Chac was sometimes thought of as one god, and other times as 4 separate gods based in the four cardinal directions: "Chac Xib Chac", Red Chac of the East; "Sac Xib Chac", White North Chac; "Ek Xib Chac" Black West Chac", and "Kan Xib Chac", Yellow East Chac.
In art, he was sometimes depicted as an old man with some reptilian or amphibian features, with fangs and **a long nose**,sometimes tears coming from his eyes (symbolizing rain) and carrying an axe (which caused thunder). He was associated with the frog. Other Maya terms used to refer to Chac include Ah Tzenul, ("he who gives food away to other people"), Hopop Caan ("he who lights the sky"), and Ah Hoya ("he who urinates").Names for the Rain God in other Mesoamerican cultures include Cocijo (Zapotec) and Tlaloc (Aztec).
While most of the ancient Mesoamerican gods are long forgotten by the descendants of the original inhabitants today, prayers to the Chaacs, most generally as a routine and not in times of drought, are documented in Yucatán as continuing into the 21st century among nominal Christian Maya farmers. Anthropologists have documented other prayers still in use which are identical to pre-Columbian prayers to Chac except that the name Chac has been replaced by that of Saint Thomas.Chac should not be confused with the Maya-Toltec figure Chac Mool. "
quote:Nimr: So much for The trunk being used for spraying water idea.
As I have just demonstrated, you have yet to counter anything I put forth, other than simply 'denial'.
quote:Nimr:
quote:[i]"The Idea of Elephants Diffused Early to the Americas: Elephant images are found in sculptures and in writings in Mexico, Belize, Honduras, and Guatemala. [list=A] [*]The oldest elephant head was sculptured on top of a human form during the age of the Olmec culture and found in the Huasteca of Mexico, who speak a Mayan language. [*]The most complete elephant shape is from the Honduran archeological ruin at Copan in Stela B. The elephant's trunk is part of the Rain God Chac (in Mayan) and Tlaloc (in Nahuatle) in Belize. [*]It is found in major concentrations as part of the face of the Rain God in the Puuc region of Yucatan, where they really did need the rains. The trunk curves or recurves in various ways that are elephantine and not of a Macaw as has been sometimes claimed. The Codex shows an elephant, trunk upraised, spouting water that falls as rain for the maize crop."
Again, speculation. Feel free to show the trunk spouting water. That a professor speculates, makes no difference.
Your denial is your problem; take it up, with the professor.
quote:Nimr:
“The Mayans depended on rain water they saved in cisterns (chultunes), but as this region has very little rainfall, the rain god Chac was of prime importance to their lives. That is why there are innumerable masks of Chac on their temples, the elephant-nosed god who wields the lightning bolt which represented rain. The king who probably reigned in the 10th century named himself Lord Chac, as revealed by steles at Uxmal. Water does lie in secretive underground rivers approached through caverns or wells called cenotes. Some claim there is a vast network beneath the earth which the Maya used to escape the Spanish who wanted to impress them into servitude.” [/QUOTE]Again,moder european interpretion on Ancient American tradition. But none of the mythology corroborates these western perceptions.[/quote]
You on the other hand, have yet to provide a logical explanation for trunks used for a nose, as inspired by anything else but an elephant. Your water snake "guesswork", doesn't make any sense.
quote:Nimr:
quote:Show me tapirs with quite long, much less flexible as the trunks in the following images:
Don't have to. Ican show you plenty of snakes and tapirs full represented in their artwork. Enough to know they could be used as inspiration.
Because you have none!
Tapirs are represented as symbolism for 'rain'; Gee, what prompted to Mayans to ever think of such a creature in that manner. Where are those depictions of Tapirs in association with rain, and with trunks as shown on those masks?
quote:Nimr:
quote:Show me a tapir, whose snout can remind anyone of anything that channels water, suck it in or spout it! LOL.
First show me any depiction of such activity. No image of the mayans shows it.
Already have. Where were you, when I showed tons of images of faces with trunks for a nose? What tapir with nose of that length, can you share the images of with us?
quote:Nimr:
quote:
Show me an elephant with those teeth, and no tusks.
Are you suggesting that elephants are teethless? As for the tusks...redundant! See my earlier response.
quote:Nimr: "The tapir's nose is long because it's adapted so that he can have a good smelling sense and reach leaves which are high above the ground. The tapir's snout helps it sniff its way through the forest and is used much like an elephant's trunk to pull vegetation to the mouth. The tapirs can also use their nose as a snorkel while they are under water."
In other words, grasping power. In other words the ability to manipulate enough to inspire someone who sees it.
How so? How the heck would a mere pig-like creature, which has the ability to 'snorkel' under water, remind anyone with anything that remotely sucks in, and spouts water like that of the much longer snout of the elephant? Perhaps, the "snorkeling" part??...give me a break!
Overall, you have said nothing so far [but offer simple-minded denials], in light of what was presented. Posted by Supercar (Member # 6477) on :
quote:Originally posted by Nimr: Again, an assumption of a trunk. Trunks are made by fusing the nose and the lip together. All those images also have the upper lip.
Lol. Elephants have a trunk for a nose, and then, they have a mouth. This is a no brainer!
quote:Nimr: LIke I showed in a prior image, Tlaloc shows a snake coming out his nose. It also shows many with teeth that are not like any of an elephant.
Show us the image of a snake coming out of Tlaloc's nose, such that it remotely resembles anything like the masks/faces with proboscis for a nose!
quote:Nimr: Furthermore, not one tusk is represented. Again, speculation on trunks is fine and dandy.
Don't need to; these are caricatures or humanoid deities. Besides, at least one image seems to show the tusk, i.e., the Stela B. Really doesn't concern me what you consider speculation, but what you can present as an alternative logical explanation; to this point, you haven't provided any.
quote:Nimr: Show me a full elephant in their art. They represented plenty of other animals in full body.
Already have.
quote:Nimr: Again, speculation is great. But unless you can show that in Mayan mythology, all you are doing is using your creativity for speculation, much like the mayans used theirs to create fantastic looking gods.
Not necessarily my viewpoint; it is found within scholarly circles, and I've presented an example of one. And what more do I need, than your own reference...
"Chac was the ancient Maya god of rain and lightning. He was one of the earliest and most worshipped gods among the all the people of mesoamerica. Chac was often depicted with a serpentine axe in his hand [not for a nose] a metaphor for lightning, and his body was scaled and reptilian."
...sometimes common sense, is what it takes, for things to start kicking in.
quote:Nimr: So who is to say the water snakes aren't the inspiration? fangs, but no tusks.
Water snake for what symbolism, in association with delivering water?...and where are the heads of the snake? Elephant trunks are clearly notable for sucking, and spouting water. The trunks on Stela B, for example, are snakes...yeah right!
Turning to your own citations, that were provided without sources:
"The Mayan god of fertility and agriculture, the one who sends thunder and rain. Later he appears as one of the Bacabs, a group of four protective deities, where Chac is the personification of the east. The center of his cult was in Chichen Itzan (Yucatan). He is the Tlaloc of the Aztec and the rain god Cocijo of the Zapotec. Chac is portrayed with two curling fangs, a long turned-up nose and tears streaming from his wide eyes. His hair was made up of a tangle of knots.
Chac was beneficent and a friend of man. He taught them how to grow vegetables and was the protector of their cornfields. The Maya appealed to him for rain by means of particular ceremonies by which the men would settle outside the village and adhere to strict observance of fasting and sexual abstinence. The animal associated with Chac is the frog, because it signals the coming of rain by its croaking.
He is also known as Ah Hoya ("he who urinates"), Ah Tzenul ("he who gives food to others"), and Hopop Caan ("he who lights up the sky")"
quote:Nimr: Another depiction of Chac He is a serpent.
Yes, the entire body as a serpant in "water", not to mention that this serpant has a head. What has this to do with faces/masks with proboscis for a nose? Zip!
More of your own references...
"In Maya mythology, Chac (sometimes spelled "Chaac") was the god of rain and thunder, and important as a fertility and agriculture god. Like some other Maya gods, Chac was sometimes thought of as one god, and other times as 4 separate gods based in the four cardinal directions: "Chac Xib Chac", Red Chac of the East; "Sac Xib Chac", White North Chac; "Ek Xib Chac" Black West Chac", and "Kan Xib Chac", Yellow East Chac.
In art, he was sometimes depicted as an old man with some reptilian or amphibian features, with fangs and **a long nose**,sometimes tears coming from his eyes (symbolizing rain) and carrying an axe (which caused thunder). He was associated with the frog. Other Maya terms used to refer to Chac include Ah Tzenul, ("he who gives food away to other people"), Hopop Caan ("he who lights the sky"), and Ah Hoya ("he who urinates").Names for the Rain God in other Mesoamerican cultures include Cocijo (Zapotec) and Tlaloc (Aztec).
While most of the ancient Mesoamerican gods are long forgotten by the descendants of the original inhabitants today, prayers to the Chaacs, most generally as a routine and not in times of drought, are documented in Yucatán as continuing into the 21st century among nominal Christian Maya farmers. Anthropologists have documented other prayers still in use which are identical to pre-Columbian prayers to Chac except that the name Chac has been replaced by that of Saint Thomas.Chac should not be confused with the Maya-Toltec figure Chac Mool. "
quote:Nimr: So much for The trunk being used for spraying water idea.
As I have just demonstrated, you have yet to counter anything I put forth, other than simply 'denial'.
quote:Nimr:
quote:[i]"The Idea of Elephants Diffused Early to the Americas: Elephant images are found in sculptures and in writings in Mexico, Belize, Honduras, and Guatemala. [list=A] [*]The oldest elephant head was sculptured on top of a human form during the age of the Olmec culture and found in the Huasteca of Mexico, who speak a Mayan language. [*]The most complete elephant shape is from the Honduran archeological ruin at Copan in Stela B. The elephant's trunk is part of the Rain God Chac (in Mayan) and Tlaloc (in Nahuatle) in Belize. [*]It is found in major concentrations as part of the face of the Rain God in the Puuc region of Yucatan, where they really did need the rains. The trunk curves or recurves in various ways that are elephantine and not of a Macaw as has been sometimes claimed. The Codex shows an elephant, trunk upraised, spouting water that falls as rain for the maize crop."
Again, speculation. Feel free to show the trunk spouting water. That a professor speculates, makes no difference.
Your denial is your problem; take it up, with the professor.
quote:Nimr:
quote:“The Mayans depended on rain water they saved in cisterns (chultunes), but as this region has very little rainfall, the rain god Chac was of prime importance to their lives. That is why there are innumerable masks of Chac on their temples, the elephant-nosed god who wields the lightning bolt which represented rain. The king who probably reigned in the 10th century named himself Lord Chac, as revealed by steles at Uxmal. Water does lie in secretive underground rivers approached through caverns or wells called cenotes. Some claim there is a vast network beneath the earth which the Maya used to escape the Spanish who wanted to impress them into servitude.”
Again,moder european interpretion on Ancient American tradition. But none of the mythology corroborates these western perceptions.
You on the other hand, have yet to provide a logical explanation for trunks used for a nose, as inspired by anything else but an elephant. Your water snake "guesswork", doesn't make any sense.
quote:Nimr:
quote:Show me tapirs with quite long, much less flexible as the trunks in the following images:
Don't have to. Ican show you plenty of snakes and tapirs full represented in their artwork. Enough to know they could be used as inspiration.
Because you have none!
Tapirs are represented as symbolism for 'rain'; Gee, what prompted to Mayans to ever think of such a creature in that manner. Where are those depictions of Tapirs in association with rain, and with trunks as shown on those masks?
quote:Nimr:
quote:Show me a tapir, whose snout can remind anyone of anything that channels water, suck it in or spout it! LOL.
First show me any depiction of such activity. No image of the mayans shows it.
Already have. Where were you, when I showed tons of images of faces with trunks for a nose? What tapir with nose of that length, can you share the images of with us?
quote:Nimr:
quote:
Show me an elephant with those teeth, and no tusks.
Are you suggesting that elephants are teethless? As for the tusks...redundant! See my earlier response.
quote:Nimr: "The tapir's nose is long because it's adapted so that he can have a good smelling sense and reach leaves which are high above the ground. The tapir's snout helps it sniff its way through the forest and is used much like an elephant's trunk to pull vegetation to the mouth. The tapirs can also use their nose as a snorkel while they are under water."
In other words, grasping power. In other words the ability to manipulate enough to inspire someone who sees it.
How so? How the heck would a mere pig-like creature, which has the ability to 'snorkel' under water, remind anyone with anything that remotely sucks in, and spouts water like that of the much longer snout of the elephant? Perhaps, the "snorkeling" part??...give me a break!
Overall, you have said nothing so far [but offer simple-minded denials], in light of what was presented. Posted by Caracal (Member # 10475) on :
quote:Originally posted by Supercar: Elephants a trunk for a nose, and then, they have a mouth. This is a no brainer!
You have yet to prove the elephant.
quote:Show us the image of a snake coming out of Tlaloc's nose, such that it remotely resembles anything like the masks/faces with proboscis for a nose!
Scroll up
quote:Don't need to; there are caricatures or humanoid deities.
Which you claim are elephantine.
quote: Besides, at least one image seems to show the tusk, i.e., the Stela B. Really doesn't concern me what you consider speculation, but what you can present as an alternative logical explanation; to this point, you haven't provided any.
Sorry but I do not see one tusk there. Feel free to point out where exactly your trunk is.
quote:Already have.
No you haven't. All you have done is speculated.
quote:Not necessarily my viewpoint; it is found within scholarly circles, and I've presented an example of one. And what more do I need, than your own reference...
Scholarly circles? Don't think so. Geography is not a scholarly circle on Mayan art/Cosmology
quote:and his body was scaled and reptilian." ...sometimes common sense, is what it takes, for things to start kicking in.
Waiting for it to kick in for you.
quote:Water snake for what symbolism, in association with delivering water?...and where are the heads of the snake? Elephant trunks are clearly notable for sucking, and spouting water. The trunks on Stela B, for example, are snakes...yeah right!
No one ever mentioned that they were snakes there. That could be an ear for all we know. Water and aquatic creatures. hmmmmm.
Like I said speculation. Ask a Mayan
quote:Turning to your own citations, that were provided without sources
Google and they will pop up.
quote:Yes, the entire body as a serpant in "water", not to mention that this serpant has a head. What has this to do with faces/masks with proboscis for a nose?
It shows what types of creatures he is related with.
quote:As I have just demonstrated, you have yet to counter anything I put forth, other than simply 'denial'.
Nice try. I showed that water did not originate from his trunk in many depictions. You have yet to show a trunk spouting water.
quote:Your denial is your problem; take it up, with the professor.
Nice try. I just will quote another professor.
On the Stella at Copan L Sprague de Camp points out that unlike elephants, whose nostrils are at the end of their trunks, these have nostrils at the front at the roots of these organs. Plus large round eyes surrounded by feathers. http://www.mesoweb.com/copan/tour/textindex.html The back of Stela B (foreground) is occupied by a huge mountain monster mask, meant to represent a cave. Inside the right eye of the mask, the artist even tells us what specific cave we are dealing with: Mo' Witz or Macaw Mountain. The monument's main text (carved on its sides and not visible here) tells us that the other face of the stela depicts the Copan king "in the guise of the Lord of Macaw Mountain" (see photo #24), for whatever ritual he was commemorated as conducting. To the left and back, we see Stela C with its turtle altar and in the far background, Stela F. http://www.mesoweb.com/copan/tour/30.html The back of Stela B (foreground) is occupied by a huge monster mask, meant to represent a mountain. Inside the right eye of the mask, the artist even tells us what specific mountain we are dealing with: Mo' Witz or Macaw Mountain. The monument's main text (carved on its sides and not visible here) tells us that the other face of the stela depicts the Copan king "in the guise of the Lord of Macaw Mountain" (see photo #24), for whatever ritual he was commemorated as conducting. To the left and back, we see Stela C with its turtle altar and in the far background, Stela F.
http://www.mesoweb.com/copan/tour/24.html Stela B. Celebrating the 9.15.0.0.0 period ending, Waxaklajuun Ub'aah K'awiil is depicted here using the typical Copan "turban", while his bicephalic ceremonial bar emits two tiny images of the rain deity Chaak. It has been suggested that this is due to the fact that, on 9.15.0.0.0, Venus was at its maximum elongation in the area of the sky that corresponds to our constellation Virgo, which the Maya saw as associated with Chaak. Aside from talking about the monument's erection, Stela B's text specifically mentions that the monument was meant to display the king as the Lord of the Macaw Mountain, which may have been either a real or mythical place associated with Copan.
The stella itself SAYS they are macaws.
Although probably more accurate Tucans
Another from Professor Bernard Ortiz de Montellano
The founder of the Copan Dynasty was K’inich Yax K’uk Mo’ “Great-Sun First Quetzal Macaw” AD 426-437.
Stela B depicts and was erected by Waxaklajun Ub’ah K’awil ( “18 Images of K’awiil”) ruler of Copan AD 695-738.
Linda Schele and Peter Matthews. 1998. The Code of Kings. NYconfused smileycribners.
Pp. 161- 165. Waxaklahun-Ubah-K’awil closed the k’atun by erecting Stela B adjacent to Stela C, the monument that had begun the series (Fig, 4.29). Like the 9.14.0.0.0 k’atun ending, 9.15.0.0.0. (August 22, 731) found Venus at an important station as the Eveningstar: it was at its maximum elongation in Virgo, a constellation that the ancient Maya saw as the god Chak. Waxaklahun Ubah-K’awil wears the diadem of Chak over his turban headdress and he materializes Chak out of his Ceremonial Serpent Bar in honor of the Eveningstar and its host constellation. The appearance of Chak as the king’s guise on Stela B may also evoke the myth of the patron gods again. Across the Great Plaza on Stela F, Waxaklahun-Ubah-K’awil wears the guise of the Bearded Jaguar God while the altar in front of his feet shows the Baby jaguars tumbling down the mountain monster. Chak is the god who threw the Baby Jaguar down the mountain in the myth of Copan’s patron gods. The rest of his costume is fairly conventional, with its royal belt, ahaw heads, and perforator bags riding over the World Tree apron. A wide collar made of jade or shell mosaic appears behind his Serpent Bar. Clusters of feathers and foliation sporting the head of the maize God rise from the top of his turban. Finally he wears a shell face ornament like that on Stela F, perhaps because he enacts one of the episodes of the Kan-Te-Ahaw myth. The Bearded Jaguar God in that myth wears an identical beard, as does Waxaklahun Ubah-K’awil on Stela F. It is the background of this stela that is so unusual. On Stela F, 4 and H, the sculptors presented Waxaklahun-Ubah-K’awil as if he were standing in the plaza wearing his ornate clothing and a full-length backrack. On Stela A, they replaced the backrack with a long inscription on the sides and back of the monument. On Stela B, Waxaklahun-Ubah-K’awil stands inside a great mountain structure that surrounds him on three sides. Above his head, we can see the muzzle, eyes, and forehead of the mountain monster with small ancestral Chak figures sitting in its eyes. The huge macaw heads that emerge from the corners of the mountain mark it as Mo’-Witz“Macaw Mountain.” The lower jaw and teeth of this Macaw Mountain curve up behind Waxaklahun-Ubah-K’awil’s ankles. A stack of three smaller mountain monsters rises up the sides of the stela to the level of the macaw heads. A way wearing the Copan turban rides the muzzle of the lowermost mountain on each side.The entire rear surface also represents a mountain, with glyphs in its eyes and an ancestral figure sitting inside its forehead cavity. The ancestor wears a huge domed headdress decorated with anthropomorphic god heads and an upright jaguar paw. The glyphs (Fig. 4.30) in the shuttered eyes of this great Mountain Monster declare its proper name and associate it with sacred space. The eye on the left reads Mo’-Witz,” “Macaw Mountain,” while the other reads Kan Na Kan “four na skies,” one of the sky locations on Stela A. Below the eyes, huge tuber ornaments emerge from the nostrils, while the muzzle drops down over the open mouth. There, another glyph names a critical location for the dynasty of Yax K’uk-Mo - Baknal Ox Witik, Ox Witik, “three sources,” was the ancient location where Yax-K’uk’-Mo founded his dynasty. Inscriptions referred to throughout the history of the dynasty, until it became Kan Witik “Four sources”, during the lifetime of the last king. Thus, both the front and back of Stela B identify Waxaklahun-Ubah-K’awil’s location as Macaw Mountain, and on the back we learn that the people of Copan associated the mountain with Kan Na Kan and Ox Witik.
THE INSCRIPTION The inscription (Fig. 4.31) begins on the north side of the stela with the Long count date of the events 9.15.0.0.0 4 Ahaw 13 Yax. Three related phrases follow the date: a sky god, an earth god, and Hun-Kanal-Tzuk-Ahaw, the name of the Bearded Jaguar God on Stela F. This god may reflect that Venus was at its maximum elongation on this night. The text jumps to the other side where the first phrase records the erection of the stela, with its proper name “Great partition of the Sky.” Then the text says that Waxaklahun-Ubah-K’awil is in the persona of the Macaw Mountain Lord, a reference to the mountain imagery all around him. It goes on to record the k’atun ending and the scattering ritual that he performed. Finally, the personification expression occurs again in front of a jaguar-eared old god who has fire in front of his face combined with a name ending in Nen-K’awil, “Mirror-K’awil.” The phrase may name the ancestral figure emerging from the mountain cleft on the other side of the stela. This little fellow holds a bundle that may contain the mirror. Finally, the text ends by recording Waxaklahun-Ubah-K’awil with his title as the thirteenth king in the dynasty of Copan. The word for “dynasty” or “lineage” is Ch’ok-Te-Nah, “Sprout-Tree-House.” ******** This is the level of detail that someone, like Linda Schele, who really knows what they are talking about can provide. It is also important to note that you should not take one little piece of iconography in isolation. Linda here refers to iconography in other stelae erected by this ruler, to many Mayan myths, and to the translation of glyphs on the stela to round out the meaning. It should be noted that the macaw association goes all the way back to the founder of the Copan dynasty. Stela B not only shows macaws but also repeatedly TELLS us that the name of the mountain surrounding Waxaklajun Ub’ah K’awil is "Macaw Mountain."
As for your claim of a broken nose. Same face. Nothing broken
quote:You on the other hand, have yet to provide a logical explanation for trunks used for a nose, as inspired by anything else but an elephant. Your water snake "guesswork", doesn't make any sense.
I showed snakes on tlaloc, I have shown macaws on Chac, and I have shown a prehensile nose on Tapirs.
here is more information and the narrative that goes with the Spinden figures. the fact that (b) is 3-dimensional really helps suppport that (c) is a macaw. The other clear tip-off is the clearly seen beaded eye, which is the conventioin for macaw.
From Mary Miller and Karl Taube. 1993. The Gods and symbols of Ancient Mexico and the Maya NY:Thames & Hudson.
Pp. 107-108. “Long-nosed and long-lipped deities. Although these terms have long been used for Classic maya and other deities, they are confusing and do not allow for discrimination among Maya GODS, SCHELLHAS first used the term “god with the long nose” to describe CHAC, but since his day, great numbers of gods have been called long nosed. The more recent term, “long-lipped deity,” has been used to describe more accurately the extended upper lip of many Maya and Izapa gods, but this term also tends to group all such deities together without distinction. What can be said about the shape of the lower face- or what can more generally be called the snout- is that it may reveal a zoomorphic origin. Upward-turning snouts, like that of the JESTER GOD, indicate a SERPENT origin. Downward curving snouts, like that of the PRINCIPAL BIRD DEITY, suggest the beaks of birds. Blunt or square snouts generally reveal a JAGUAR origin.”
Herbert J. Spinden.1975 [1913]. A Study of Maya Art NYgrinning smileyover
pp. 78-79. “Among birds represented in the Maya codices Drs. Tozzer and Allen (1910. Animal figures in the maya Codices. Papers peabody Museum IV no.3) have identified the following: herons, probably of several species, frigate bird, ocellated turkey, king vulture, harpy eagle, Yucatan horned owl and screech owl, coppery-tailed trogon or quetzal, blue macaw and perhaps a few others. The bird reproduced in fig. 79 doubtless represents the pelican, as may be seen from the character of the greatly enlarged bill which shows the knot that appears during the mating season. The length to which the Maya artist would go in representing a single species is shown in Fig. 102 a-c. Of these (a) is a glyph carved on the back of Stela B at Copan, the first part of which gives the head of the blue macaw, while (b) is a sculpture in the full round representing the same bird ans coming form the same city. Note the nostril at the top of the bill, the eyes surrounded by a circlet of small knobs as well as the hook-shaped appendage to the base of the eye, likewise composed of knobs. In (c) the short lower bill and the tongue are omitted and a more or less human ear with characteristic decoration is introduced at the side of the face. The upper bill is lengthened and enlarged. This last figure occurs twice in the front of Stela B in Copan and has often been explained as an elephant trunk. The true explanation [BOM blue macaw] has been worked out independently by a number of students. [BOM Tozzer and Allen 1910, Parry 1893; Gordon 1909].” *******8 Miller and Taube (1993: 132) “In Mesoamerican art, macaws can often be identified not only by their thick beak and long tail, but also by a beaded ring encircling the eye [BOM underline]
quote:Tapirs are represented as symbolism for 'rain'; Gee, what prompted to Mayans to ever think of such a creature in that manner. Where are those depictions of Tapirs in association with rain, and with trunks as shown on those masks?
Turned out to be birds, but I was speculating just like you. But I admited to that.
quote:Already have. Where were you, when I showed tons of images of faces with [b]trunks for a nose
None spouting water. And they torned out being zoomorhic representations of bills.
quote:How so? How the heck would a mere pig-like creature, which has the ability to 'snorkel' under water, remind anyone with anything that remotely sucks in, and spouts water like that of the much longer snout of the elephant? Perhaps, the "snorkeling" part??...give me a break!
Overall, you have said nothing so far [but offer simple-minded denials], in light of what was presented.
You have yet to show any mayan mention of noses spouting water. Posted by alTakruri (Member # 10195) on :
Professor? This guy wrote Conan & the Spider god. At least a geographer is a scientist. What's next Yag Kosha?
quote:Originally posted by Caracal: Nice try. I just will quote another professor.
On the Stella at Copan L Sprague de Camp
Posted by Supercar (Member # 6477) on :
quote:Nimr:
quote:Not necessarily my viewpoint; it is found within scholarly circles, and I've presented an example of one. And what more do I need, than your own reference...
Scholarly circles? Don't think so. Geography is not a scholarly circle on Mayan art/Cosmology
Hate to break it to you, but in the real world, professors are scholars.
quote:Nimr:
quote:and his body was scaled and reptilian." ...sometimes common sense, is what it takes, for things to start kicking in.
Waiting for it to kick in for you.
…a pot calling a kettle black.
quote:Nimr:
quote:Water snake for what symbolism, in association with delivering water?...and where are the heads of the snake? Elephant trunks are clearly notable for sucking, and spouting water. The trunks on Stela B, for example, are snakes...yeah right!
No one ever mentioned that they were snakes there. That could be an ear for all we know. Water and aquatic creatures. hmmmmm.
Like I said speculation. Ask a Mayan
Don’t have to; the image speaks for itself.
quote:Nimr:
quote:Turning to your own citations, that were provided without sources
Google and they will pop up.
Plagiarism can get you into trouble; keep that mind.
quote:Nimr:
quote:Yes, the entire body as a serpant in "water", not to mention that this serpant has a head. What has this to do with faces/masks with proboscis for a nose?
It shows what types of creatures he is related with.
What it doesn’t show, is a proboscis! The structures extending from the faces of the masks, are clearly proboscis; it doesn’t show a person being a snake. Can’t discern the difference, or the immateriality of your logic? Nor can you tell a difference between a proboscis and a figure of an entire creature? Clearly not.
quote:Nimr:
quote:As I have just demonstrated, you have yet to counter anything I put forth, other than simply 'denial'.
Nice try. I showed that water did not originate from his trunk in many depictions. You have yet to show a trunk spouting water.
Strawmans won’t save you.
quote:Nimr:
quote:Your denial is your problem; take it up, with the professor.
Nice try. I just will quote another professor.
On the Stella at Copan L Sprague de Camp points out that unlike elephants, whose nostrils are at the end of their trunks, these have nostrils at the front at the roots of these organs. Plus large round eyes surrounded by feathers. http://www.mesoweb.com/copan/tour/textindex.html The back of Stela B (foreground) is occupied by a huge mountain monster mask, meant to represent a cave. Inside the right eye of the mask, the artist even tells us what specific cave we are dealing with: Mo' Witz or Macaw Mountain. The monument's main text (carved on its sides and not visible here) tells us that the other face of the stela depicts the Copan king "in the guise of the Lord of Macaw Mountain" (see photo #24), for whatever ritual he was commemorated as conducting. To the left and back, we see Stela C with its turtle altar and in the far background, Stela F. http://www.mesoweb.com/copan/tour/30.html The back of Stela B (foreground) is occupied by a huge monster mask, meant to represent a mountain. Inside the right eye of the mask, the artist even tells us what specific mountain we are dealing with: Mo' Witz or Macaw Mountain. The monument's main text (carved on its sides and not visible here) tells us that the other face of the stela depicts the Copan king "in the guise of the Lord of Macaw Mountain" (see photo #24), for whatever ritual he was commemorated as conducting. To the left and back, we see Stela C with its turtle altar and in the far background, Stela F.
http://www.mesoweb.com/copan/tour/24.html Stela B. Celebrating the 9.15.0.0.0 period ending, Waxaklajuun Ub'aah K'awiil is depicted here using the typical Copan "turban", while his bicephalic ceremonial bar emits two tiny images of the rain deity Chaak. It has been suggested that this is due to the fact that, on 9.15.0.0.0, Venus was at its maximum elongation in the area of the sky that corresponds to our constellation Virgo, which the Maya saw as associated with Chaak. Aside from talking about the monument's erection, Stela B's text specifically mentions that the monument was meant to display the king as the Lord of the Macaw Mountain, which may have been either a real or mythical place associated with Copan.
Where can I find macaws with proboscis?
Prof. Carl Johnanneson said it best:
“…The elephant's trunk is part of the Rain God Chac (in Mayan) and Tlaloc (in Nahuatle) in Belize. It is found in major concentrations as part of the face of the Rain God in the Puuc region of Yucatan, where they really did need the rains. The trunk curves or recurves in various ways that are elephantine and not of a Macaw as has been sometimes claimed. The Codex shows an elephant, trunk upraised, spouting water that falls as rain for the maize crop.”
Indeed, show us a Macaw that has anything remotely like that!
quote:Nimr: The stella itself SAYS they are macaws.
Where? Demonstrate the scripture and the linguistic re-constructions for this, as they appear on the Stela B.
quote:Nimr: As for your claim of a broken nose. Same face. Nothing broken
Hey, just because you can’t see it; doesn’t mean that the rest of us are blind. Take another look at the earlier image you provided, and compare it to this one.
quote: Nimr:
quote:You on the other hand, have yet to provide a logical explanation for trunks used for a nose, as inspired by anything else but an elephant. Your water snake "guesswork", doesn't make any sense.
I showed snakes on tlaloc, I have shown macaws on Chac, and I have shown a prehensile nose on Tapirs.
None of these bear remote resemblance to the structures in question, that can unequivocally be associated with carrying water…like the elephant trunk.
quote: Nimr:
Although probably more accurate Tucans
Another from Professor Bernard Ortiz de Montellano
The founder of the Copan Dynasty was K’inich Yax K’uk Mo’ “Great-Sun First Quetzal Macaw” AD 426-437.
Stela B depicts and was erected by Waxaklajun Ub’ah K’awil ( “18 Images of K’awiil”) ruler of Copan AD 695-738.
Linda Schele and Peter Matthews. 1998. The Code of Kings. NYconfused smileycribners.
Pp. 161- 165. Waxaklahun-Ubah-K’awil closed the k’atun by erecting Stela B adjacent to Stela C, the monument that had begun the series (Fig, 4.29). Like the 9.14.0.0.0 k’atun ending, 9.15.0.0.0. (August 22, 731) found Venus at an important station as the Eveningstar: it was at its maximum elongation in Virgo, a constellation that the ancient Maya saw as the god Chak. Waxaklahun Ubah-K’awil wears the diadem of Chak over his turban headdress and he materializes Chak out of his Ceremonial Serpent Bar in honor of the Eveningstar and its host constellation. The appearance of Chak as the king’s guise on Stela B may also evoke the myth of the patron gods again. Across the Great Plaza on Stela F, Waxaklahun-Ubah-K’awil wears the guise of the Bearded Jaguar God while the altar in front of his feet shows the Baby jaguars tumbling down the mountain monster. Chak is the god who threw the Baby Jaguar down the mountain in the myth of Copan’s patron gods. The rest of his costume is fairly conventional, with its royal belt, ahaw heads, and perforator bags riding over the World Tree apron. A wide collar made of jade or shell mosaic appears behind his Serpent Bar. Clusters of feathers and foliation sporting the head of the maize God rise from the top of his turban. Finally he wears a shell face ornament like that on Stela F, perhaps because he enacts one of the episodes of the Kan-Te-Ahaw myth. The Bearded Jaguar God in that myth wears an identical beard, as does Waxaklahun Ubah-K’awil on Stela F. It is the background of this stela that is so unusual. On Stela F, 4 and H, the sculptors presented Waxaklahun-Ubah-K’awil as if he were standing in the plaza wearing his ornate clothing and a full-length backrack. On Stela A, they replaced the backrack with a long inscription on the sides and back of the monument. On Stela B, Waxaklahun-Ubah-K’awil stands inside a great mountain structure that surrounds him on three sides. Above his head, we can see the muzzle, eyes, and forehead of the mountain monster with small ancestral Chak figures sitting in its eyes. The huge macaw heads that emerge from the corners of the mountain mark it as Mo’-Witz“Macaw Mountain.” The lower jaw and teeth of this Macaw Mountain curve up behind Waxaklahun-Ubah-K’awil’s ankles. A stack of three smaller mountain monsters rises up the sides of the stela to the level of the macaw heads. A way wearing the Copan turban rides the muzzle of the lowermost mountain on each side.The entire rear surface also represents a mountain, with glyphs in its eyes and an ancestral figure sitting inside its forehead cavity. The ancestor wears a huge domed headdress decorated with anthropomorphic god heads and an upright jaguar paw. The glyphs (Fig. 4.30) in the shuttered eyes of this great Mountain Monster declare its proper name and associate it with sacred space. The eye on the left reads Mo’-Witz,” “Macaw Mountain,” while the other reads Kan Na Kan “four na skies,” one of the sky locations on Stela A. Below the eyes, huge tuber ornaments emerge from the nostrils, while the muzzle drops down over the open mouth. There, another glyph names a critical location for the dynasty of Yax K’uk-Mo - Baknal Ox Witik, Ox Witik, “three sources,” was the ancient location where Yax-K’uk’-Mo founded his dynasty. Inscriptions referred to throughout the history of the dynasty, until it became Kan Witik “Four sources”, during the lifetime of the last king. Thus, both the front and back of Stela B identify Waxaklahun-Ubah-K’awil’s location as Macaw Mountain, and on the back we learn that the people of Copan associated the mountain with Kan Na Kan and Ox Witik.
THE INSCRIPTION The inscription (Fig. 4.31) begins on the north side of the stela with the Long count date of the events 9.15.0.0.0 4 Ahaw 13 Yax. Three related phrases follow the date: a sky god, an earth god, and Hun-Kanal-Tzuk-Ahaw, the name of the Bearded Jaguar God on Stela F. This god may reflect that Venus was at its maximum elongation on this night. The text jumps to the other side where the first phrase records the erection of the stela, with its proper name “Great partition of the Sky.” Then the text says that Waxaklahun-Ubah-K’awil is in the persona of the Macaw Mountain Lord, a reference to the mountain imagery all around him. It goes on to record the k’atun ending and the scattering ritual that he performed. Finally, the personification expression occurs again in front of a jaguar-eared old god who has fire in front of his face combined with a name ending in Nen-K’awil, “Mirror-K’awil.” The phrase may name the ancestral figure emerging from the mountain cleft on the other side of the stela. This little fellow holds a bundle that may contain the mirror. Finally, the text ends by recording Waxaklahun-Ubah-K’awil with his title as the thirteenth king in the dynasty of Copan. The word for “dynasty” or “lineage” is Ch’ok-Te-Nah, “Sprout-Tree-House.” ******** This is the level of detail that someone, like Linda Schele, who really knows what they are talking about can provide. It is also important to note that you should not take one little piece of iconography in isolation. Linda here refers to iconography in other stelae erected by this ruler, to many Mayan myths, and to the translation of glyphs on the stela to round out the meaning. It should be noted that the macaw association goes all the way back to the founder of the Copan dynasty. Stela B not only shows macaws but also repeatedly TELLS us that the name of the mountain surrounding Waxaklajun Ub’ah K’awil is "Macaw Mountain…
here is more information and the narrative that goes with the Spinden figures. the fact that (b) is 3-dimensional really helps suppport that (c) is a macaw. The other clear tip-off is the clearly seen beaded eye, which is the conventioin for macaw.
From Mary Miller and Karl Taube. 1993. The Gods and symbols of Ancient Mexico and the Maya NY:Thames & Hudson.
Pp. 107-108. “Long-nosed and long-lipped deities. Although these terms have long been used for Classic maya and other deities, they are confusing and do not allow for discrimination among Maya GODS, SCHELLHAS first used the term “god with the long nose” to describe CHAC, but since his day, great numbers of gods have been called long nosed. The more recent term, “long-lipped deity,” has been used to describe more accurately the extended upper lip of many Maya and Izapa gods, but this term also tends to group all such deities together without distinction. What can be said about the shape of the lower face- or what can more generally be called the snout- is that it may reveal a zoomorphic origin. Upward-turning snouts, like that of the JESTER GOD, indicate a SERPENT origin. Downward curving snouts, like that of the PRINCIPAL BIRD DEITY, suggest the beaks of birds. Blunt or square snouts generally reveal a JAGUAR origin.”
Herbert J. Spinden.1975 [1913]. A Study of Maya Art NYgrinning smileyover
pp. 78-79. “Among birds represented in the Maya codices Drs. Tozzer and Allen (1910. Animal figures in the maya Codices. Papers peabody Museum IV no.3) have identified the following: herons, probably of several species, frigate bird, ocellated turkey, king vulture, harpy eagle, Yucatan horned owl and screech owl, coppery-tailed trogon or quetzal, blue macaw and perhaps a few others. The bird reproduced in fig. 79 doubtless represents the pelican, as may be seen from the character of the greatly enlarged bill which shows the knot that appears during the mating season. The length to which the Maya artist would go in representing a single species is shown in Fig. 102 a-c. Of these (a) is a glyph carved on the back of Stela B at Copan, the first part of which gives the head of the blue macaw, while (b) is a sculpture in the full round representing the same bird ans coming form the same city. Note the nostril at the top of the bill, the eyes surrounded by a circlet of small knobs as well as the hook-shaped appendage to the base of the eye, likewise composed of knobs. In (c) the short lower bill and the tongue are omitted and a more or less human ear with characteristic decoration is introduced at the side of the face. The upper bill is lengthened and enlarged. This last figure occurs twice in the front of Stela B in Copan and has often been explained as an elephant trunk. The true explanation [BOM blue macaw] has been worked out independently by a number of students. [BOM Tozzer and Allen 1910, Parry 1893; Gordon 1909].” *******8 Miller and Taube (1993: 132) “In Mesoamerican art, macaws can often be identified not only by their thick beak and long tail, but also by a beaded ring encircling the eye [BOM underline]
Just a load of immaterial stuff. None of birds mentioned, have flexible trunks like elephants. I would like to see any of these birds with trunks.
quote:Nimr:
quote:Tapirs are represented as symbolism for 'rain'; Gee, what prompted to Mayans to ever think of such a creature in that manner. Where are those depictions of Tapirs in association with rain, and with trunks as shown on those masks?
Turned out to be birds, but I was speculating just like you. But I admited to that.
Doesn’t surprise me! You’ve only proven that you are the party speculating. You haven’t disturbed a thing I’ve said; just simple denials.
quote:Nimr:
quote:Already have. Where were you, when I showed tons of images of faces with trunks for a nose
None spouting water. And they torned out being zoomorhic representations of bills.
…says Salsassin, but sane folks know that there is no such thing, as birds with trunks that coil.
quote:Nimr:
quote:How so? How the heck would a mere pig-like creature, which has the ability to 'snorkel' under water, remind anyone with anything that remotely sucks in, and spouts water like that of the much longer snout of the elephant? Perhaps, the "snorkeling" part??...give me a break!
Overall, you have said nothing so far [but offer simple-minded denials], in light of what was presented.
You have yet to show any mayan mention of noses spouting water.
Don’t have to show you jack. That claim was from a reference I provided, and so, if you need to clarify it, contact the author. I am sure that author would be happy to educate you on the matter. I’ve done my job of coherently and consistently demonstrating that these are snouts, i.e., noses, in the same manner as elephants. You have yet to do your job of offering anything convincing to the contrary, aside casual and distractive denials lacking any kind of materiality.
Posted by rasol (Member # 4592) on :
quote:Don’t have to show you jack.
I don't even read the trolls post at this point much less respond to him.
All he does is bait you into presenting more and more evidence while he presents nothing in return but 'troll bait' remarks.
Cheap tactics, but effective if played to.
Moreover he has been banned from this forum and obviously the moderators are having some trouble keeping him banned.
I recommend that his posts be deleted and he should be banned again...only then do trolls realise the futility of their games, tire of them, and go away. I would suggest not responding to him in the interim.
Posted by Caracal (Member # 10475) on :
quote:Originally posted by alTakruri: Professor? This guy wrote Conan & the Spider god. At least a geographer is a scientist. What's next Yag Kosha?
quote:Originally posted by Caracal: Nice try. I just will quote another professor.
On the Stella at Copan L Sprague de Camp
I was being sarcastic. Geography Literature. Same closeness. Professor Ortiz de Montellano is relevant though
Posted by Supercar (Member # 6477) on :
quote:Originally posted by rasol:
quote:Don’t have to show you jack.
I don't even read the trolls post at this point much less respond to him.
All he does is bait you into presenting more and more evidence while he presents nothing in return but 'troll bait' remarks.
Cheap tactics, but effective if played to.
Moreover he has been banned from this forum and obviously the moderators are having some trouble keeping him banned.
I recommend that his posts be deleted and he should be banned again...only then do trolls realise the futility of their games, tire of them, and go away. I would suggest not responding to him in the interim.
I'm with you on this, all the way; 100%! Can't say that I didn't try to give the guy the benefit of doubt.
Posted by Caracal (Member # 10475) on :
quote:Originally posted by Supercar: Hate to break it to you, but in the real world, professors are scholars.[quote] Sorry to break it to you, but there are hobbies and there are works within their scholarly field of the author. I don't ask an astrophysicist for his expertise on oral histories.
[quote]a pot calling a kettle black.
a stone thrown in a glass house.
quote:Don’t have to; the image speaks for itself.
Obviously not as it turned out to be birds.
quote:Plagiarism can get you into trouble; keep that mind.
Not naming the author does not mean Ilaid claim to them. Don't argue law with a JD.
quote:What it doesn’t show, is a proboscis! The structures extending from the faces of the masks, are clearly proboscis; it doesn’t show a person being a snake.
Could be, or could be something else. Speculation. Just like yours.
quote: Can’t discern the difference, or the immateriality of your logic? Nor can you tell a difference between a proboscis and a figure of an entire creature? Clearly not.{/quote] Speculation. Itis as valid as your assumption of an elephant. At least snakes existed there.
[quote]Strawmans won’t save you.
You mean like your whole argument here?
quote:Where can I find macaws with proboscis?{/quote] Dude, if you want to argue with direct quotes from the Mayans whodid the stella, then i truly say you are full of it. It doesn't matter if it looks like it to you. So long as it made sense to them, that's all that matters.
[quote]Prof. Carl Johnanneson said it best:
“…The elephant's trunk is part of the Rain God Chac (in Mayan) and Tlaloc (in Nahuatle) in Belize. It is found in major concentrations as part of the face of the Rain God in the Puuc region of Yucatan, where they really did need the rains. The trunk curves or recurves in various ways that are elephantine and not of a Macaw as has been sometimes claimed. The Codex shows an elephant, trunk upraised, spouting water that falls as rain for the maize crop.”
Indeed, show us a Macaw that has anything remotely like that!
Professor Johansenn and you are talking out of your asses. If the mayans themselves say those were birds. Who are you guys to claim they are not?
quote:Where? Demonstrate the scripture and the linguistic re-constructions for this, as they appear on the Stela B.
Strawman. Go to the website and ask them for a direct quote. Actually I think I posted a translation earlier.
Again you are fishing. Basically you have nothing so you are trying to push this point.
Posted by Caracal (Member # 10475) on :
quote:
Hey, just because you can’t see it; doesn’t mean that the rest of us are blind. Take another look at the earlier image you provided, and compare it to this one.[/quote] Wrong. The other one was roughed up, but still the same basic shape.
quote:None of these bear remote resemblance to the structures in question, that can unequivocally be associated with carrying water…like the elephant trunk.
Strawman . No idnication whatsoever that the nose of CHac was used to carry water.
quote:Just a load of immaterial stuff. None of birds mentioned, have flexible trunks like elephants. I would like to see any of these birds with trunks.
In other words, you hate being proved wrong, so you are just going to stick to your trunk theory because you don't like the truth.
quote:Don’t have to show you jack. That claim was from a reference I provided, and so, if you need to clarify it, contact the author. I am sure that author would be happy to educate you on the matter. I’ve done my job of coherently and consistently demonstrating that these are snouts, i.e., noses, in the same manner as elephants. You have yet to do your job of offering anything convincing to the contrary, aside casual and distractive denials lacking any kind of materiality.
Wishful thinking isn't going to probve your case. Finding a hearsay claim by some geopgraphy professor, versus someone who actually translated the stella. You are full of it, and its obvious.
Ferrous Cranus is utterly impervious to reason, persuasion and new ideas, and when engaged in battle he will not yield an inch in his position regardless of its hopelessness. Though his thrusts are decisively repulsed, his arguments crushed in every detail and his defenses demolished beyond repair he will remount the same attack again and again with only the slightest variation in tactics.
Stone Deaf is one of the few truly invincible Warriors because nothing can shatter his impenetrable armor of non recognition. His primitive battle strategy is maddening effective; he simply refuses to acknowledge any arguments he doesn't like. Stone Deaf remains utterly oblivious as he advances his dogged and often repetitious attacks. In the early stages of battle a wide array of Warriors will fling themselves at Stone Deaf, but inevitably they fall back exahusted or lose interest when they see that their best weapons have no effect.
You focus on the trunks claim for this reason Artful Dodger is a nimble and elusive Warrior. When faced with an attack he can't rebuff he maneuvers the discussion into an area where he feels he occupies the high ground. Knowing full well that to stay on topic will assure his defeat, he is utterly impervious to counterattacks like, "that has nothing to do with this discussion".
Yup you to a T
I am done wasting my time on a subject that has been shown by their own writing to represent birds. Ar the noses the extent of your evidence of Africans being the Olmecs? Posted by Caracal (Member # 10475) on :
quote:Originally posted by rasol:
quote:Don’t have to show you jack.
I don't even read the trolls post at this point much less respond to him.
All he does is bait you into presenting more and more evidence while he presents nothing in return but 'troll bait' remarks.
Cheap tactics, but effective if played to.
Moreover he has been banned from this forum and obviously the moderators are having some trouble keeping him banned.
I recommend that his posts be deleted and he should be banned again...only then do trolls realise the futility of their games, tire of them, and go away. I would suggest not responding to him in the interim.
Whatever Rashole. You haven't shown anything valid in this subject. You are just a hipocrite trying to pretend he doesn't believe in races.
Posted by Supercar (Member # 6477) on :
quote:Originally posted by Caracal:
Professor Johansenn and you are talking out of your asses. If the mayans themselves say those were birds. Who are you guys to claim they are not?
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Confused]](confused.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
![[Cool]](cool.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
L. Sidirom believes Knowledge began Europeans L 
Originally posted by Clyde Winters:
