It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
The great Olmec centers that soon developed at La Venta, San Lorenzo, and Laguna de los Cerros, and the smaller centers such as Tres Zapotes, were not simply vacant religious sites, but dynamic settlements that included artisans and farmers, as well as religious specialists and the rulers. The Olmec architecture at San Lorenzo, for example, includes both public-ceremonial buildings, elite residences, and the houses of commoners. Olmec public-ceremonial buildings were most typically earthen platform mounds, some of which had larger house-like structures built upon them. At La Venta we can see that after 900 B.C. such platform mounds were arranged around large plaza areas and include a new type of architecture, a tall pyramid mound.
Originally posted by Uncle Joe
Beyond their giant heads I wasnt aware of any other major Olmec structures, but hav'nt the Olmecs been dated to around 100AD? Rather than the Egyptian 2000BC.
I could easiy be wrong on this but im fairly sure that such a wide gap seperates the two civilisations that there is no real evidence of a connection.
why not just assume that they sailed across the atlantic?
They do seem to have something in common when it comes to their structures and their hierarchy.
Originally posted by ketoes13
in my science class today we discussed continental drift. It moved on to how humans crossed the bering strait and came to america. then, we discussed how it seemed the aztecs seemed so much more advanced than the native Americans even though the Native Americans had about 500 years more. We then noticed that the Aztecs and the Egyptions both built pyramids. well, going with the continental drift theory, we think that humans first came to the americas when pangea broke up