Interesting Olmec Figurines...

page: 1
34
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join
+11 more 
posted on Jan, 11 2014 @ 12:04 PM
link   
Over the next few weeks I'll be pre-positioning threads in various forums and a few in this one for a very specific reason to be revealed at a later date. I'll begin with posting some images that I and many here are already familiar with. These are from Central America's "Mother Culture/Civilization" The Olmec I know many here are already aware of the Colossal Stone Heads however I'm not sure just how many are aware of the great diversity there is in this earliest of Cultures. Much appears very dare I say "Multi-Ethnic" ?

In any case as I said I've been researching these various cultures for some time and it just dawned on me that maybe many people here are not as familiar with the various styles as some of us are and maybe would appreciate being introduced with this small sampling.


The Olmec were the first major civilization in Mexico. They lived in the tropical lowlands of south-central Mexico, in the modern-day states of Veracruz and Tabasco.

The Olmec flourished during Mesoamerica's Formative period, dating roughly from as early as 1500 BCE to about 400 BCE. Pre-Olmec cultures had flourished in the area since about 2500 BCE, but by 1600–1500 BCE Early Olmec culture had emerged centered on the San Lorenzo Tenochtitlán site near the coast in southeast Veracruz. They were the first Mesoamerican civilization and laid many of the foundations for the civilizations that followed. Among other "firsts", the Olmec appeared to practice ritual bloodletting and played the Mesoamerican ballgame, hallmarks of nearly all subsequent Mesoamerican societies.

The most familiar aspect of the Olmecs is their artwork, particularly the aptly named "colossal heads". The Olmec civilization was first defined through artifacts which collectors purchased on the pre-Columbian art market in the late 19th century and early 20th century. Olmec artworks are considered among ancient America's most striking


Olmec white ware "hollow baby" figurines



Other Olmec white ware "hollow" figurines


Rare Olmec Wooden Figurine


There are a few other rather interestingly intriguing styles that I haven't posted here for a very specific reason so stay tuned.
edit on 11-1-2014 by SLAYER69 because: (no reason given)




posted on Jan, 11 2014 @ 12:17 PM
link   
Yay! More interesting material for this wondering mind... looking forward to delving into it.

I've got a few tasks to do today... but I shall dig into this a bit later today.



leolady



posted on Jan, 11 2014 @ 12:25 PM
link   
Have not seen these before. Extremely interesting. I am struck by the very oriental appearance of many of the figures.Most curious. Thanks for the thread. I'm always interested in your posts.



posted on Jan, 11 2014 @ 12:34 PM
link   
I find the almost conical head shapes to be oddly reminisce of other cultures around the world. I don't believe it's an exaggeration especially after you pay attention to all the detail these figurines have. Most of them show the teeth, jaws and even belly buttons proportionally accurate so why not the top of the head?

Maybe it's just head binding or maybe the skull of this race of human just grew this way.

The wooden statue is my favorite so far. I would have loved to see this thing complete.



posted on Jan, 11 2014 @ 12:37 PM
link   
The figures are always fascinating, because they certainly seem to imply contact between the Olmecs and ancient China. However, a recent and thorough study indicates the Olmec share no genetic markers with any Asian, African, or European races (beyond those typical of Amerindians, ie humans crossing Beringa many tens of thousands of years ago. They discount any recent contact, circa 1200 BC - 1000BC, meaning the Olmecs were not settlers from China, Africa, Pacific Islanders, or Europe.

HLA genes in Mexican Mazatecans, the peopling of the Americas and the uniqueness of Amerindians.

“Significant genetic input from outside is not noticed in Meso and South American Amerindians according to the phylogenetic analyses; while all world populations (including Africans, Europeans, Asians, Australians, Polynesians, North American Na-Dene Indians and Eskimos) are genetically related. Meso and South American Amerindians tend to remain isolated in the Neighbor-Joining.”


“Amerindians do not show relationships with Polynesians, Australians (almost discounting a massive Pacific colonization…), Caucasoids or African blacks.” (Arnaiz-Villena; pg 413)

I have to admit my opinion on the peopling of the Americas has changed quite a bit due to a number of studies lately, but this has to do with origins of the population. Contact via trans-oceanic trade may still have been possible and does seem implied, again due to the figurines produced bearing such an Chinese quality, but here again we have look at all the evidence before jumping to conclusions - mainly, what did the Olmecs actually look like in comparison to their figurines?

Images sourced from ancientaliensdebunked.com







A question for you Slayer, is if it was trade between China and the Olmec that resulted in these figurines bearing such a Chinese resemblance, has there been findings in China of Olmec artifacts? Or Olmec/Mesoamerican jade appearing in China/Shang Dynasty? We have what appears to be figurines mass produced by the Olmec, possibly for trade with China? Or influenced by China? But if so, then surely there should be evidence in China of such trade, contact, or influence? Otherwise what conclusions can we draw - that the Olmec made these figures based on themselves, and that, unlikely as it may seem to us, this is how they appeared - Chinese/Negroid features and all.



posted on Jan, 11 2014 @ 12:39 PM
link   
reply to post by SLAYER69
 


Nice images, I've only seen the big stone heads the afrocentrists fixate on.

All the anthropological data I could find on them a few years ago supported the typical native origin for the Olmec. The people currently living in the area have somewhat fleshier lips and wider noses than is standard for native Americans, but there's no evidence of any European or African ancestry going back any time in the region (from DNA study read a long time ago).



posted on Jan, 11 2014 @ 12:44 PM
link   
Wow! These are amazing!

I love this stuff!



posted on Jan, 11 2014 @ 12:55 PM
link   
reply to post by SLAYER69
 


There was obviously some very odd looking human beings back in
the day. I don't even have the first clue, as to how the details
of the figures were even contemplated. Not to mention achieved.

SnF



posted on Jan, 11 2014 @ 01:57 PM
link   

SLAYER69
Much appears very dare I say "Multi-Ethnic" ?


The Olmec were the first major civilization in Mexico. They lived in the tropical lowlands of south-central Mexico, in the modern-day states of Veracruz and Tabasco.

The Olmec flourished during Mesoamerica's Formative period, dating roughly from as early as 1500 BCE to about 400 BCE. Pre-Olmec cultures had flourished in the area since about 2500 BCE, but by 1600–1500 BCE Early Olmec culture had emerged centered on the San Lorenzo Tenochtitlán site near the coast in southeast Veracruz. They were the first Mesoamerican civilization and laid many of the foundations for the civilizations that followed. Among other "firsts", the Olmec appeared to practice ritual bloodletting and played the Mesoamerican ballgame, hallmarks of nearly all subsequent Mesoamerican societies.

The most familiar aspect of the Olmecs is their artwork, particularly the aptly named "colossal heads". The Olmec civilization was first defined through artifacts which collectors purchased on the pre-Columbian art market in the late 19th century and early 20th century. Olmec artworks are considered among ancient America's most striking



S&F Slayer...excellent once again


A definate resemblance of our 'combined races'.

Looking into the face of this relic shows humanity ALL four racially combined.

Scrutinize his 'necklace'.

One can imagine him as a tall-white-skinned-blonde-bearded
Quetzalcoatl

(almost seated -for lack of better term- as a Buddhist bearing good will and superior knowledge)

Looking forward to more of your brand of history as always!
Be well.



posted on Jan, 11 2014 @ 04:05 PM
link   
Im here. I don't have a lot to add right this moment. But want to read as this goes on.

Thanks, Slayer. One of my favorite parts of the world to study.



posted on Jan, 11 2014 @ 04:33 PM
link   
reply to post by SLAYER69
 


The more we study ancient sites around the world the clearer it becomes to some these cultures did have contact somehow. We seei sculpture left in stone, animals and people that these cultures could not possibly have contact with. Yet we see them depicted in stone and wood and figurines, paintings etc.

For me throughout our modern history dealing with people who never saw white men, machines etc in world War two was microcosm of our ancient past. It proved that the ancients did depict accurately what they have seen. Whether it be aliens or people they came into contact with help from somewhere we don't yet understand. It is the only way these cultures could know of some of the many fascinating things they depict in many different mediums.

This just does not happen here but all over the world.

Interesting....

Luv ya brother,

The Bot



posted on Jan, 11 2014 @ 05:06 PM
link   
Fascinating just fascinating.
Top notch Slayer as all your threads are.



posted on Jan, 11 2014 @ 08:24 PM
link   
There were no "black" Olmecs. The Olmecs were Amerind. Thee was no "diversity."

All ancient Mexican skeletons have Sundadont or Sinodant teeth- which are not African. I am citing the works of Dr. Christy Turner- look them up.

Also, there is no black DNA input in Mexico except for the coastal Mestizos where the slaves were brought in. Dr. Ruben Lisker is the source here.

The Olmec heads don't even look negroid. They have epicanthic eyefolds, which speak of their Asian heritage, and lack prognathic jaws. They are OBVIOSLY Amerind.

Debunking "Black Olmec" in 23 Seconds - YouTube

The Face of a Tzotzil Does Not Lie - YouTube



posted on Jan, 11 2014 @ 10:01 PM
link   
edit on 11-1-2014 by SLAYER69 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 12 2014 @ 09:05 PM
link   

cachibatches
There were no "black" Olmecs. The Olmecs were Amerind. Thee was no "diversity."

All ancient Mexican skeletons have Sundadont or Sinodant teeth- which are not African. I am citing the works of Dr. Christy Turner- look them up.

Also, there is no black DNA input in Mexico except for the coastal Mestizos where the slaves were brought in. Dr. Ruben Lisker is the source here.

The Olmec heads don't even look negroid. They have epicanthic eyefolds, which speak of their Asian heritage, and lack prognathic jaws. They are OBVIOSLY Amerind.

Debunking "Black Olmec" in 23 Seconds - YouTube

The Face of a Tzotzil Does Not Lie - YouTube


Are you sure about that, for one saying someone is Black is not the same thing as saying someone is African and we can throw out loaded terms such as "Negroid" "Caucasoid" " "Mongoloid" as these features overlap and are not specific to anyone geographical area,example slue eyed folks is to be found in many an African people,broad featured woolly haired folks is to be found in Asia and the Pacific without them being connected to any recent OOA migration,folks with so called European like features is to be found all over the globe without them having any connection to folks living in Europe.

Dinka woman.

Khoisan Woman Southern Africa

Ba Himba Woman Southern Africa.
The above are Africans one from the South Sudan the others from Southern Africa baring the slue eyes or epicanthic eye folds found in some Asians.

Notice the hair and hair line of this Olmec figure,not saying this is an African for that is debatable but was he Black??..I have little doubt but this is not a stand alone you have many a figurines or statuettes.


Reconstruction of the first American Brazil called Luiza

Excuse the loaded old terms used in this vid such as Negroid and focus on the statuettes by Von Wuthenau,and like I said the African connection is in fact debatable.
It is more likely that the above is somewhat related to the below.


The first Americans were descended from Australian aborigines, according to evidence in a new BBC documentary.

[ image: The skulls suggest faces like those of Australian aborigines]
The skulls suggest faces like those of Australian aborigines
The programme, Ancient Voices, shows that the dimensions of prehistoric skulls found in Brazil match those of the aboriginal peoples of Australia and Melanesia. Other evidence suggests that these first Americans were later massacred by invaders from Asia.

Until now, native Americans were believed to have descended from Asian ancestors who arrived over a land bridge between Siberia and Alaska and then migrated across the whole of north and south America. The land bridge was formed 11,000 years ago during the ice age, when sea level dropped.
However, the new evidence shows that these people did not arrive in an empty wilderness. Stone tools and charcoal from the site in Brazil show evidence of human habitation as long ago as 50,000 years.

news.bbc.co.uk...
www.abovetopsecret.com...
Go here also to view vid and more info.
edit on 12-1-2014 by Spider879 because: Just because.



posted on Jan, 12 2014 @ 10:24 PM
link   
Thanks for the post Slayer. Outstanding!
I've always found these figures intriguing. Figures of babies are rare in the prehistoric Americas as far as I can find out and these figures are some of the finest craftsmanship seen. Some craftspeople had a lot of free time to be able to work with those materials and get that sort of result, whether the medium was stone or clay---or in rarely recovered pieces, wood.
Another interesting issue is that these are fat babies---a sign of wealth in prehistoric times and extending into historic tribes. (A commonly-heard greeting among the elders at Pow-Wows is "Ah, it's good to see you've grown old and fat!")
We find very few people in the Middle Mississippian culture whose remains show signs of the skeleton having carried extra weight. I've not studied the Olmec specifically but I'm betting it's the same in their remains.
I would be interested to know where these pieces were discovered---in houses, graves, public buildings? That might give clues about their origins and meaning.
As for Asian, European or African visitors to the Americas? I have no doubt that they showed up from time to time. Probably made quite a sensation when they did, enough perhaps for some crafts-person to capture their image in some way, stone, wood or clay. Migrations though? Eh, that's a bit shaky from the genetic studies I've seen but I'll say upfront that I haven't followed the field very closely since I retired. I'm not sure how extensive the studies have been because good, solid testing on those types of materials is still pretty pricey, like about $2k per individual for the tests to show family lines. Most of the studies I've seen take random samples from the populations rather than doing individual testing on each set of remains and tracing family lines.
Again, Thanks for the post. I'm always interested to hear other folks' ideas on these mysteries.



posted on Jan, 16 2014 @ 04:47 AM
link   

Spider879

cachibatches
There were no "black" Olmecs. The Olmecs were Amerind. Thee was no "diversity."

All ancient Mexican skeletons have Sundadont or Sinodant teeth- which are not African. I am citing the works of Dr. Christy Turner- look them up.

Also, there is no black DNA input in Mexico except for the coastal Mestizos where the slaves were brought in. Dr. Ruben Lisker is the source here.

The Olmec heads don't even look negroid. They have epicanthic eyefolds, which speak of their Asian heritage, and lack prognathic jaws. They are OBVIOSLY Amerind.

Debunking "Black Olmec" in 23 Seconds - YouTube

The Face of a Tzotzil Does Not Lie - YouTube


Are you sure about that, for one saying someone is Black is not the same thing as saying someone is African and we can throw out loaded terms such as "Negroid" "Caucasoid" " "Mongoloid" as these features overlap and are not specific to anyone geographical area,example slue eyed folks is to be found in many an African people,broad featured woolly haired folks is to be found in Asia and the Pacific without them being connected to any recent OOA migration,folks with so called European like features is to be found all over the globe without them having any connection to folks living in Europe.

Dinka woman.

Khoisan Woman Southern Africa

Ba Himba Woman Southern Africa.
The above are Africans one from the South Sudan the others from Southern Africa baring the slue eyes or epicanthic eye folds found in some Asians.

Notice the hair and hair line of this Olmec figure,not saying this is an African for that is debatable but was he Black??..I have little doubt but this is not a stand alone you have many a figurines or statuettes.


Reconstruction of the first American Brazil called Luiza

Excuse the loaded old terms used in this vid such as Negroid and focus on the statuettes by Von Wuthenau,and like I said the African connection is in fact debatable.
It is more likely that the above is somewhat related to the below.


The first Americans were descended from Australian aborigines, according to evidence in a new BBC documentary.

[ image: The skulls suggest faces like those of Australian aborigines]
The skulls suggest faces like those of Australian aborigines
The programme, Ancient Voices, shows that the dimensions of prehistoric skulls found in Brazil match those of the aboriginal peoples of Australia and Melanesia. Other evidence suggests that these first Americans were later massacred by invaders from Asia.

Until now, native Americans were believed to have descended from Asian ancestors who arrived over a land bridge between Siberia and Alaska and then migrated across the whole of north and south America. The land bridge was formed 11,000 years ago during the ice age, when sea level dropped.
However, the new evidence shows that these people did not arrive in an empty wilderness. Stone tools and charcoal from the site in Brazil show evidence of human habitation as long ago as 50,000 years.

news.bbc.co.uk...
www.abovetopsecret.com...
Go here also to view vid and more info.
edit on 12-1-2014 by Spider879 because: Just because.


Note how I put "black" in quotation marks. Lets not muddy the waters here- they were not African.

As for khosian peoples- are you implying that they were khoisan, because I have never heard even an Afrocentrist argue this. In any event, Khosian do not have sundadont and sinodant teeth any more than Bantu.

I have seen the program about the Aboriginals. Aboriginals are as genetically different from Africans as possible, and the program said that they were mostly eradicated by those who crossed the land bridge.

Look up the videos I posted on youtube (I see they didn't form links). They make it pretty clear who the Olmecs were.



posted on Jan, 16 2014 @ 09:45 AM
link   

cachibatches

Spider879

cachibatches
There were no "black" Olmecs. The Olmecs were Amerind. Thee was no "diversity."

All ancient Mexican skeletons have Sundadont or Sinodant teeth- which are not African. I am citing the works of Dr. Christy Turner- look them up.

Also, there is no black DNA input in Mexico except for the coastal Mestizos where the slaves were brought in. Dr. Ruben Lisker is the source here.

The Olmec heads don't even look negroid. They have epicanthic eyefolds, which speak of their Asian heritage, and lack prognathic jaws. They are OBVIOSLY Amerind.

Debunking "Black Olmec" in 23 Seconds - YouTube

The Face of a Tzotzil Does Not Lie - YouTube


Are you sure about that, for one saying someone is Black is not the same thing as saying someone is African and we can throw out loaded terms such as "Negroid" "Caucasoid" " "Mongoloid" as these features overlap and are not specific to anyone geographical area,example slue eyed folks is to be found in many an African people,broad featured woolly haired folks is to be found in Asia and the Pacific without them being connected to any recent OOA migration,folks with so called European like features is to be found all over the globe without them having any connection to folks living in Europe.

Dinka woman.

Khoisan Woman Southern Africa

Ba Himba Woman Southern Africa.
The above are Africans one from the South Sudan the others from Southern Africa baring the slue eyes or epicanthic eye folds found in some Asians.

Notice the hair and hair line of this Olmec figure,not saying this is an African for that is debatable but was he Black??..I have little doubt but this is not a stand alone you have many a figurines or statuettes.


Reconstruction of the first American Brazil called Luiza

Excuse the loaded old terms used in this vid such as Negroid and focus on the statuettes by Von Wuthenau,and like I said the African connection is in fact debatable.
It is more likely that the above is somewhat related to the below.


The first Americans were descended from Australian aborigines, according to evidence in a new BBC documentary.

[ image: The skulls suggest faces like those of Australian aborigines]
The skulls suggest faces like those of Australian aborigines
The programme, Ancient Voices, shows that the dimensions of prehistoric skulls found in Brazil match those of the aboriginal peoples of Australia and Melanesia. Other evidence suggests that these first Americans were later massacred by invaders from Asia.

Until now, native Americans were believed to have descended from Asian ancestors who arrived over a land bridge between Siberia and Alaska and then migrated across the whole of north and south America. The land bridge was formed 11,000 years ago during the ice age, when sea level dropped.
However, the new evidence shows that these people did not arrive in an empty wilderness. Stone tools and charcoal from the site in Brazil show evidence of human habitation as long ago as 50,000 years.

news.bbc.co.uk...
www.abovetopsecret.com...
Go here also to view vid and more info.
edit on 12-1-2014 by Spider879 because: Just because.


Note how I put "black" in quotation marks. Lets not muddy the waters here- they were not African.

As for khosian peoples- are you implying that they were khoisan, because I have never heard even an Afrocentrist argue this. In any event, Khosian do not have sundadont and sinodant teeth any more than Bantu.

I have seen the program about the Aboriginals. Aboriginals are as genetically different from Africans as possible, and the program said that they were mostly eradicated by those who crossed the land bridge.

Look up the videos I posted on youtube (I see they didn't form links). They make it pretty clear who the Olmecs were.


You stated that Africans or Blacks: The Olmec heads don't even look negroid. They have epicanthic eyefolds, which speak of their Asian heritage
To which I respond those features can be found among Africans and btw not just the Khoisan the first lady is in fact a Nilo-Saharan the last was a Bantu nor did I make a case for Khoisan or any other Africans among the Olmecs,I said that's debatable and I am leaning towards Black Asians as a possible explanation for those features.
edit on 16-1-2014 by Spider879 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 18 2014 @ 10:22 AM
link   
Zero DNA evidence, not a scrap to suggest black people had anything to do with that culture and its achievements !



posted on Jan, 18 2014 @ 08:03 PM
link   

LUXUS
Zero DNA evidence, not a scrap to suggest black people had anything to do with that culture and its achievements !

Black people or African people the two are not mutually exclusive,as explained above,





top topics
 
34
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join