Olmec Giant Stone Heads Mystery Solved?

page: 6
70
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join

posted on Mar, 16 2009 @ 02:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by SLAYER69

Originally posted by Logarock
Ok this first guy doesn't count becouse we know he is an american native and already looks like he might be related to the Olmecs.


Well he is native American but from the wrong location. I'll let the readers decide on how close his features match those of the stone heads of the Olmec and keep my opinions to myself.



We all know that there are very distinct differences among native peoples of the Americas. Simply calling them Indians and throwing them into one lump is rather naive don't you think?



We? What do you have a mouse in your pocket? lol
I am sorry that you thought I was trying to "lump". Looks like you dont mind putting words in the moths of others. And I wont be keeping my opinions to myself, if you dont mind, especially in a threat that started out with the smashed face idea. Jeez man. Freek'in thought police! I think all the accolades you get form your many neophytes have gone to your head.


"Well he is native American but from the wrong location". Really? Wow! No stuff? Dont suppose his ancestors could have migrated do you? Your probably right as he doesn't look African enough unless maybe if he had smashed his face into a wall on a regular basis.




posted on Mar, 16 2009 @ 03:30 PM
link   
Lol, Hans, you have only tried to distort what I post rather than refute it. Where did I say they made a direct Atlantic crossing?

This link sums it all up - Olmec_alternative_origin_speculations

There have been waves of migrations to the Americas dating back 10's of thousands of years. When the Xi peoples began to arrive they intermingled with native cultures. Whats important to distinguish is that the emergence of pyramid building, hieroglyphic writing and cultural artifacts relate them to another culture found in Western Africa.
Not only did migratory African races play a role in Mesoamerica but so did Asian races. What you have in the Olmec is an amalgamation of those races circa 1,400 BC (perhaps even earlier).

Another "alternative history" site that lays out the number of similarities between ancient Mexico and ancient Africa.
The Olmecs: An African Presence in Early America



posted on Mar, 16 2009 @ 03:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by SLAYER69

I'll let the readers decide on how close his features match those of the stone heads of the Olmec and keep my opinions to myself.





No thought police here reread it.
I said I'll keep "my" opinions about the picture you posted to "MYSELF"
Not "your" opinions but "My"

You are completely welcome to post your opinions.



posted on Mar, 16 2009 @ 03:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by Blackmarketeer
Lol, Hans, you have only tried to distort what I post rather than refute it. Where did I say they made a direct Atlantic crossing?

This link sums it all up Olmec_alternative_origin_speculations





Olmec_alternative_origin_speculations


Genetic evidence

Proponents of African influence on the Olmecs claim that some genetic studies of Mexican indigenous populations support their claims,[8] although the authors of these studies typically consider any African admixture to be a post-Colonial occurrence.[citation




[edit on 16-3-2009 by SLAYER69]



posted on Mar, 16 2009 @ 04:08 PM
link   
Ok on the opinions.


Here a good layout link of heads...

www.micahwright.com...


If I could back up for a moment, not that I actually have a solid opinion about the African connection, these heads do represent something other than the classical Mayan type. I say this knowing that some of the 5 tribes dont have the classic Mayan features to the degree that others do.

If I could be allowed for the sake of argument for a moment to suggest that many of these heads do represent Africans then some of the heads with more subtle features many represent racial mixing with the other tribes.



posted on Mar, 16 2009 @ 04:30 PM
link   
reply to post by Logarock
 


The facts are that to date there is no concrete genetic proof just yet also the old story of Africa as being the cradle of civilization is true but it's not the end all be all as far as the Americas.

There are very old civilizations recently found right here in the Americas which the Olmec could have risen from places like Caral of South America which is a lot closer than Africa oh and by the way they share genetic traits and they are just as old as Sumeria or Egypt.






[edit on 16-3-2009 by SLAYER69]



posted on Mar, 16 2009 @ 04:51 PM
link   

(click to open player in new window)




[edit on 16-3-2009 by SLAYER69]



posted on Mar, 16 2009 @ 04:52 PM
link   
en.wikipedia.org...

History
Caral was inhabited between roughly 2600 BCE and 2000 BCE, enclosing an area of 66 hectares.[2] Caral was described by its excavators as the oldest urban center in the Americas, a claim that was later challenged as other ancient sites were found nearby. Accommodating more than 3,000 inhabitants, it is the best studied and one of the largest Norte Chico sites known.



en.wikipedia.org...

The radiocarbon work of Jonathan Haas et al., found that 10 of 95 samples taken in the Pativilca and Fortaleza areas dated from before 3500 BC; the oldest, dating from 9210 BC, provides "limited indication" of human settlement during the Pre-Columbian Early Archaic era.


[edit on 16-3-2009 by SLAYER69]



posted on Mar, 17 2009 @ 01:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by Logarock
Ok on the opinions.


Here a good layout link of heads...

www.micahwright.com...



Very nice find, and thank you for that!



If I could back up for a moment, not that I actually have a solid opinion about the African connection, these heads do represent something other than the classical Mayan type.


ermm.... yes, because they're Olmec and not Mayan. That's as different as Hopi and Aztecs. Also, please recall that Mayans practiced head binding and head modifications... and lived over 600 years after the last of the Olmecs.

But they don't represent Africans, although they resemble the racially biased cartoons of the 1920's in America. Africans have long skulls (shaped like "0") while Native Americans have round skulls (shaped like "O"). Africans don't have thick lips... or at least no thicker than Whites, Asians, Hispanics, Norse, English, Native Americans... etc, etc

Furthermore, there's no sudden infusion of foods new to the Americas in the Olmec villages (people who travel take their own food and food animals and cloth and recipes.) There's no sudden change in textiles and no evidence of copper working or other technology although it was possible for the Olmecs to do this.



posted on Mar, 17 2009 @ 02:19 AM
link   
I wonder why there has to be a link between Olmecs and Africa??

I suggest you all check out this webpage which shows olmec jade maks, figurines etc.

www.precolumbianjade.com...

Almost every maks/figurine indicates considerable similarities with the native indian features.



posted on Mar, 17 2009 @ 03:01 AM
link   
Although I'm a firm believer of alternative theories, including ancient astronauts and ancient civilizations, the more I look at these Olmec heads the less African they look to me. The difference between me and the average "alternative theorist" is that I'm open to evidence either way. For a long time I believed that there were aliens or ancient civilizations involved in the Egyptian pyramids, but I also believe ancient man was capable of much more than we give them credit for.

Back to the Olmecs. If we can believe the geneticists
man originated in Africa and spread throughout the entire world from there. Natural selection intervened which is why people who have lived for thousands of years in different areas look different. This could be why some "African features" could pop up in peoples who are very far away from Africa. We are all genetically linked. I still prefer the alternative theory of ancient seafarers who were not racist and had blacks in their crew



posted on Mar, 17 2009 @ 03:13 AM
link   

Originally posted by Logarock
Well ok ok granted that the Maya do bare facial conditions originally that MAY lend to a pronounced African look after being pounded over a long period of time



The Mayan people do not resemble negroid Africans.








posted on Mar, 17 2009 @ 07:45 AM
link   
Ancient man was present in the Americas dating back 10's of thousands of years. The original wave of Xi peoples arrived via the South Pacific and started what we call the Olmec civilization. But there was a constant wave of people arriving in these parts changing the population dynamic for the next several centuries. Look how radically the depictions of the Olmec change. The DNA test done on modern Mexican descendants of Mayan culture indicate an African admixture but this test can't be held as conclusive as pointed out because of colonialism. It was the skull and skeletal findings that were dated to the Olmec period that indicated African heritage that were the important findings.

Olmec Alternative Origin Speculation

Claiming that the Olmec were just a native culture that arose independent of Africa or China completely ignores the appearance of features related to both those cultures.

I'm sure if a red-headed step child shows up bearing an uncanny resemblance to the mailman in your family it's best to just ignore it, but believe me the neighbors will talk.



posted on Mar, 17 2009 @ 10:02 AM
link   
reply to post by Blackmarketeer
 



If the Olmec heads represent the totality of memorials to dynastic kings we could conclude that this dynasty was short lived, low numbers. Most of the heads are also found near the coastline, if I an not mistaken, this may also indicate an establishment that couldn't move inland because it was already populated and/or a desire to stay close to the coast for reasons of trade of simply becouse thats were they landed.

At any rate by the time of the rise of the classic Maya civilization the classic Olmec type is really not represented in Classic Maya art. This may indicate that the Olmec were small in number to begin with and had been assimilated by the Maya Classical period. Their low numbers, just a theory, may make tracking down DNA problematic.

Something of interest. Palenque. In the area above the tomb, there is a work showing Pacal and his son facing each other. His son shows definite signs of being of mixed race. Its very clear. Pacal was said to be over 7 feet tall and his son towers over him close to 10 feet. It is also written in the tomb that his son was born after the likeness of the "first mother".

Now considering that Palenque was one of the early Maya sites it could be possible that Pacals wife was closer to the Olmec racial type. We have examples of cross breeding in man and animals suppressing the growth inhibitor and this may account for the size. In addition Pacals son also is shown with 6 toes and fingers. His size and extra toes/finger is consistent with skeletal and historical records of large men elsewhere. He matches the size and description of the historical Goliath. I am not saying that this son Chan Bahlum is related to the giants elsewhere mind you or am I saying anything about space men so please.

Most of the above info about Pacal and his son were gleaned form "A Forest of Kings" written by Maya researcher Linda Schele and David Freidel. They believe that Pacal represents a combined linage of two tribes or lines. The first Mothers line going all the way back into the historical darkness of a great catastrophe that struck the earth and from which her descendants escaped. This line claimed some special notice and predominance above other lines but was now being joined. So strong was the authority of this line that the attributes of Pacals mother were sufficient to justify its greatness. Pacals fathers line being noteworthy at best.

My personal opinion is that the First Mothers line was weak in number and politics and so joined with Pacals fathers line to survive yet at the same time demanding its higher status. Anyway if the busts found in Pacals tomb are accurate representation of the people they represent, Pacals nose bone comes all the way down from his forehead. His sons bust also found there shows that his nose is more subdued coming down from just between the eyes. As well Pacals features are far less robust than his sons. There is a clear indication here or a mixed racial union. It many be hard to find pictures of these busts on line but there are some in "Forest of Kings" and you should be able to find a copy at the library.

This union of the two lines was probably the cause of all the special attention Pacal got at Palenque. Pacal represents the first son of this union and his son Chan-Bahlum represents yet a further union with the "First Mothers" people. They were not only establishing a new line of kings and royalty in this union, but were in effect establishing a new racial type. If I am not mistaken the last record found to date of anyone claiming a decent from Pacal and thus right to rule was found at Tikal and was in place before being sacked and burned. And thats the way it was left until rediscovery.



posted on Mar, 17 2009 @ 11:03 AM
link   

Originally posted by Lannock
Although I'm a firm believer of alternative theories, including ancient astronauts and ancient civilizations, the more I look at these Olmec heads the less African they look to me. The difference between me and the average "alternative theorist" is that I'm open to evidence either way. For a long time I believed that there were aliens or ancient civilizations involved in the Egyptian pyramids, but I also believe ancient man was capable of much more than we give them credit for.


Now we're talking.

Most geneticist agree that the first wave supposedly came out of Africa between 50 to 60 thousand BC and made it all the way to Australia and possibly China, Whose to say they didn't make it all the way to North America and headed south?


To date, no consistent pre-Clovis cultural patterns have been established and the accuracy of these claims have been found controversial and unverified.




Topper

Topper is an archaeological site located along the Savannah River in Allendale County, South Carolina in the United States. It is noted as the location of controversial artifacts believed by some archaeologists to indicate human habitation of the New World as far back as 50,000 years ago.



Monte Verde

Monte Verde is an archaeological site in south-central Chile, which has been dated to 14,500 years before present.[1]

It pre-dates the earliest known Clovis culture site of Clovis, New Mexico, by 1000 years, contradicting the previously accepted "Clovis model" which holds that settlement of the Americas began after 13,500 years before present. As such the Monte Verde findings were initially dismissed by most of the scientific community, but in recent years the evidence has been widely accepted,[2][3] although vocal "Clovis-first" advocates remain.[4]



Cactus Hill

Cactus Hill is an archaeological site in the U.S. state of Virginia. It lies in the southeastern part of the state on the Nottoway River roughly 45 miles south of Richmond. The site, owned by the International Paper Corporation, is situated on sand dunes above the river. The site has yielded multiple levels of early occupation. Archaic stage material is underlain by fluted stone tools associated with the Clovis culture dated to 10,920 BP.

A lower level yields artifacts including unfluted bifacial stone tools with dates ranging from c. 15,000 to 17,000 years ago. White pine charcoal from a hearth context on this level dates to 15,070 radiocarbon years BP[1]. Further charcoal deposits retrieved at the site date to as early as 19,700 years ago, although these deposits may have been made by forest fires.Cactus Hill is arguably the oldest archaeological dig in North America.


[edit on 17-3-2009 by SLAYER69]



posted on Mar, 17 2009 @ 11:46 AM
link   
Here is what the best evidence shows where early man traveled and some time lines.

M-130 has been shown to have made it to the new world around 50000 BC in North America only, but then peters out, also X but around 30000 BC

M-3 shows up but no earlier than 10000 BC in South America
What makes this remarkable is the trail of mtDNA Markers
B,C,D all show up in South America between 45000 to 50000 BC and later A at around 10000 to 30000 BC. We all know that you can't have females without males. Life for men is just much more enjoyable with females


The question really should be is where does Clovis fit with regards to the onslaught of the ice age. What interactions happened between the first and later waves?

Link for full image


[edit on 17-3-2009 by SLAYER69]



posted on Mar, 17 2009 @ 11:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by SLAYER69
Topper

Topper is an archaeological site located along the Savannah River in Allendale County, South Carolina in the United States. It is noted as the location of controversial artifacts believed by some archaeologists to indicate human habitation of the New World as far back as 50,000 years ago.


Just relating to Topper, Goodyear's findings at the Topper site have been very much open to debate. A paper was submitted for peer-review. I think the general consensus, based on their findings is that they are more likely to fall between 14 and 16 000bp. If you search HoM, a thread gives it a thorough going over. It's the thread I mentioned in another post that demonstrates the genius methods of identifying geofacts and artifacts in a stream bed. It's very academic, but informative.



posted on Mar, 17 2009 @ 12:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by Logarock
reply to post by Blackmarketeer
 



If the Olmec heads represent the totality of memorials to dynastic kings we could conclude that this dynasty was short lived, low numbers. Most of the heads are also found near the coastline, if I an not mistaken, this may also indicate an establishment that couldn't move inland because it was already populated and/or a desire to stay close to the coast for reasons of trade of simply becouse thats were they landed.

At any rate by the time of the rise of the classic Maya civilization the classic Olmec type is really not represented in Classic Maya art. This may indicate that the Olmec were small in number to begin with and had been assimilated by the Maya Classical period. Their low numbers, just a theory, may make tracking down DNA problematic.


Now considering that Palenque was one of the early Maya sites it could be possible that Pacals wife was closer to the Olmec racial type.


Interesting idea but we are forgetting the time line there are plenty of centuries between the two cultures and many things could have transpired look at our own modern history how much has changed in the past 300 or 400 years?




posted on Mar, 17 2009 @ 01:32 PM
link   
Slayer69,




M-130 has been shown to have made it to the new world around 50000 BC in North America only, but then peters out, also X but around 30000 BC.


Actually that wouldn't be entirely correct. Haplogroup X is split between X1 and X2. X1 originating around 30,000 BC, while X2 dates to around 21,000 BC. X1 AFAIK never made it to North America, while X2 did.

cormac



posted on Mar, 17 2009 @ 01:42 PM
link   
I am open to the possibility that the Americas were visited by ancient Africans, Egyptians, Europeans, etc. It is too bad much of the ruins were destroyed by oil companies and such just to get the oil. They did not know the historic value and knowledge to be gained from such ruins.
I think all the statues and monuments are beautiful no matter who created them.

I hope to one day visit those ancient ruins (during their winter of course!) before the bell tolls for me.





new topics
top topics
 
70
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join