Interesting Olmec Figurines...

reply to post by Spider879


Yes I know that, for example Egyptians are Africans but they are not a black race of people.

I meant that there is no DNA evidence that a negroid race had any hand in the technological achievements of that part of the world and obviously it would be more then strange that they could not do it in their own lands but somehow did these things in others lands, but then again that's the nonsense on which all of afrocentrism is based.

LUXUS
reply to post by Spider879

 

Yes I know that, for example Egyptians are Africans but they are not a black race of people.

I meant that there is no DNA evidence that a negroid race had any hand in the technological achievements of that part of the world and obviously it would be more then strange that they could not do it in their own lands but somehow did these things in others lands, but then again that's the nonsense on which all of afrocentrism is based.

edit on 19-1-2014 by LUXUS because: (no reason given)

If you want to revisit that conversation there are threads a plenty for that.
www.abovetopsecret.com...
Go here^

It all comes down to compassion vs truth in the end, should we award this false history to afrocentrics purely out of compassion. In the end to falsely award this history to one group is to at the same time robs others of their ancestors achievements….is it right, and when one thinks about it the answer can only be no, it can never be right to promote lies as truth (if you believe truth stands for something on a spiritual level that is).

LUXUS
It all comes down to compassion vs truth in the end, should we award this false history to afrocentrics purely out of compassion. In the end to falsely award this history to one group is to at the same time robs others of their ancestors achievements….is it right, and when one thinks about it the answer can only be no, it can never be right to promote lies as truth (if you believe truth stands for something on a spiritual level that is).

www.abovetopsecret.com...

or meet here ^this off topic derailing the thread which mainly about Olmec figurines ..if you are not up to snuff I understand..

Spider879

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)

All right, so what SPECIFIC African tribe are you trying to claim that the Olmecs were so we can debunk it?

Khoisan? Other?

Again, if you just look at the pictures that have been graciously posted in this thread, or go to the Youtube videos I suggest, you see clearly that the Olmecs were native Americans. Also again, the dental evidence leaves NO DOUBT WHAT-SO-EVER about who they were. None.

So what specific imaginary tribe of Africans are you claiming built the boats and travelled to America to build pyramids that they didn't build in Africa?

LUXUS
It all comes down to compassion vs truth in the end, should we award this false history to afrocentrics purely out of compassion. In the end to falsely award this history to one group is to at the same time robs others of their ancestors achievements….is it right, and when one thinks about it the answer can only be no, it can never be right to promote lies as truth (if you believe truth stands for something on a spiritual level that is).

This is a great post. Really great. Afrocentrism is not victimless. They are robbing others of their rightful connection with their own ancestors.

And this post does tie in with the Olmecs on a very profound way. There is no doubt that the Olmecs were native Americans. none. As posted, we know fro, the works of Christy turner and Ruben Lisker that there were no Africans in America before Columbus. Others have graciously posted pictures of Mayans that look exactly like the heads, and I suggested two good youtube videos that make it clear.

Why not just let the native Americans have their ancestors, when it is so obvious? Well, Luxus, you are right. There is this attitude that somehow we have to re-invent the past for Afrocentrists out or fairness. I can't imagine anything less fair.

And the irony is, West Africa, where most African Americans come from, has a rich past of its own. Ghana, Mali, Songhai, Kanem-Bornu, Tichitt-Walata, Oudane, Chnguetti, Audoghosts, Ajami writing, Nsibidi writing, Sungo's Eredu, the Benin city walls, the Kano City walls, the Epic of Sundiatta, Mansa Musa, the libraries at Gao and Timuktu, etc. All great stuff to study without altering history.

cachibatches

Spider879

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)

All right, so what SPECIFIC African tribe are you trying to claim that the Olmecs were so we can debunk it?

Khoisan? Other?

Again, if you just look at the pictures that have been graciously posted in this thread, or go to the Youtube videos I suggest, you see clearly that the Olmecs were native Americans. Also again, the dental evidence leaves NO DOUBT WHAT-SO-EVER about who they were. None.

So what specific imaginary tribe of Africans are you claiming built the boats and travelled to America to build pyramids that they didn't build in Africa?

Stop being a distortion junkie I never stated they were Africans go back and read my posts, I said

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.

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.

And I continued above.

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.

I addressed the above to you in a previous answer.
Your next post addressed to Luxus is just dull cheer-leading based off stuff I never said..Booo
And about other African cultures besides that of Kemet pls check my profile of past threads..Yoroshi-ku onegaishimasu

Anyway an afrocentric can get their foot in the door I guess, so now they were not pure Africans but maybe they were Indians who were a bit black lol.

Btw that would show up on dna testing too so you can count that out also

LUXUS
Anyway an afrocentric can get their foot in the door I guess, so now they were not pure Africans but maybe they were Indians who were a bit black lol.

Btw that would show up on dna testing too so you can count that out also

You never did read the links on Dna mapping that I provided you damn near a year ago now did you ,Dna do not tell you your pigmentation genius it shows where an ancestor was located and relation to folks closest to you.. like a bar code on a box of pre made pancake mix.

reply to post by Spider879



DNA decides and can tell us everything about a person (including skin colour and phenotype) the idea that somehow it cant detect the ones you speak of, like they had some kind of stealth gene that defies the geneticists attempt to see them is amusing

Interesting, I see some varying head shapes. It appears there were different genetic people living together. The tall forehead looks almost European. Some almost look oriental. I suppose nowadays the Hispanics have a lot of blending in them from the spanish settlers.

LUXUS
reply to post by Spider879

 

DNA decides and can tell us everything about a person (including skin colour and phenotype) the idea that somehow it cant detect the ones you speak of, like they had some kind of stealth gene that defies the geneticists attempt to see them is amusing

edit on 20-1-2014 by LUXUS because: (no reason given)

There is a reason why I always beat you like a red headed step child at this,you are stubborn like a mule and refuse to learn anything, you could have just asked the question instead of declaring it to be so or at-least check to see if your opponent was right, your attitude towards knowledge cause you to make too many unforced errors .

Vid to drive home the point.
Can DNA Tell What “Race” You Are?

Molecular anthropologists are often asked if DNA markers can tell what “race” you are. The short answer is “no.” Mitochondrial DNA and Y haplogroups can tell from which continent your matrilineal and patrilineal ancestors came. And if you live in the Americas, autosomal mapping can tell what fraction of your ancestors came from Africa as slaves, what fraction came from Europe as colonists, and what fraction were Native Americans. But no DNA can tell your “race.”

essays.backintyme.biz...

Spider879

cachibatches

Spider879

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)

All right, so what SPECIFIC African tribe are you trying to claim that the Olmecs were so we can debunk it?

Khoisan? Other?

Again, if you just look at the pictures that have been graciously posted in this thread, or go to the Youtube videos I suggest, you see clearly that the Olmecs were native Americans. Also again, the dental evidence leaves NO DOUBT WHAT-SO-EVER about who they were. None.

So what specific imaginary tribe of Africans are you claiming built the boats and travelled to America to build pyramids that they didn't build in Africa?

Stop being a distortion junkie I never stated they were Africans go back and read my posts, I said

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.

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.

And I continued above.

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.

I addressed the above to you in a previous answer.
Your next post addressed to Luxus is just dull cheer-leading based off stuff I never said..Booo

And about other African cultures besides that of Kemet pls check my profile of past threads..Yoroshi-ku onegaishimasu

Your words: I said that's Text and I am leaning towards Black Asians as a possible explanation for those features.


So what is the debate. Is the debate that he y might have been African? Because we know for a fact that they weren't.

reply to post by Blackmarketeer


That does seen quite conclusive evidence that the Olmecs were American Indians, but some of those sculptures have distinctly heavy beards..i thought American Indians were without the Gene that encoded for heavy beards?

Is that not so?

Also of interest are the sculptures that seem to have a lot of heavy tattoos on thier faces, very similar to natives of Polynesia.

Polynesia is theorised to have been settled from Taiwan, or through the South of China anywhere between 3000 ya - 8000ya, although the natives who were thought to have come through S. China were genetically quite different from those decended from the Han people who make up most of the genetics of China today.

There's a remote possibility, that the Olmecs were not actually a single genetic race, but a fairly cosmopolitan mix of several or more distinct people. The lack of gene markers to prove this is a difficult hurdle to reconcile this theory though, unless you bring in the notion that there was in effect a very strict, and apparently closely obeyed cultural taboo of genetic mixing of the people in the region.

It seems unlikely that was probable, although not altogether out of the question IMO.

reply to post by cachibatches


It's just an opinion, but in that particular image, i think the 'hairline' is neither Asian nor African...it looks more like a hat or headdress to me rather than a hairline at all.

What makes anyone think that these heads are actual representations of actual people? Can they not be "people" who existed only in the minds of the sculptors? Use google image and look at the "Face of Lady Liberty." Just something to think about....

reply to post by Spider879


Your belief that you always beat me is subject to your own ego.

DNA can tell you everything about the physical makeup of the person including what color their eyes are, if they have kinky or straight hair and if their skin tone will be pale or dark, if dna does not code for these things then what do you suppose does?

A simple off the shelf dna test as carried out by these genealogy company's has limitations (thats what your talking about here) but even they can give you a percentage breakdown of your haplogroup which would tell you if you have ancestry shared by some tribe in Africa or not.

New DNA Test Helps to Identify Hair, Eye Color of Long-Dead People
www.natureworldnews.com...
www.redorbit.com...

" Studies have found two alleles in the vicinity of ASIP are associated with skin color variation in humans. One, rs2424984[27] has been identified as an indicator of skin reflectance in a forensics analysis of human phenotypes across Caucasian, African-American, South Asian, East Asian, Hispanic and Native American populations[28] and is about 3 times more common in non-African populations than in Africa.[29] The other allele, 8188G (rs6058017[30]) is significantly associated with skin colour variation in African-Americans and the ancestral version occurs in only 12% of European and 28% of East Asian samples compared with 80% of West African samples."

cachibatches

Spider879

cachibatches

Spider879

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)

All right, so what SPECIFIC African tribe are you trying to claim that the Olmecs were so we can debunk it?

Khoisan? Other?

Again, if you just look at the pictures that have been graciously posted in this thread, or go to the Youtube videos I suggest, you see clearly that the Olmecs were native Americans. Also again, the dental evidence leaves NO DOUBT WHAT-SO-EVER about who they were. None.

So what specific imaginary tribe of Africans are you claiming built the boats and travelled to America to build pyramids that they didn't build in Africa?

Stop being a distortion junkie I never stated they were Africans go back and read my posts, I said

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.

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.

And I continued above.

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.

I addressed the above to you in a previous answer.
Your next post addressed to Luxus is just dull cheer-leading based off stuff I never said..Booo

And about other African cultures besides that of Kemet pls check my profile of past threads..Yoroshi-ku onegaishimasu

Your words: I said that's Text and I am leaning towards Black Asians as a possible explanation for those features.


So what is the debate. Is the debate that he y might have been African? Because we know for a fact that they weren't.

The debate came from your opening statement that .

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

The Olmec heads don't even look negroid. They have epicanthic eyefolds, which speak of their Asian heritage

To which I challenged that notion that there could not have been any broad feature dark-skinned wooly haired folks among them,and the other misnomer that epicanthic eyefolds is distinctive only among some east Asian population and their descendants in the Americas. I also pointed out the possible reasons for those features among them as being a link to Austronesians or Black Asians starting with the Luzia finds in Brazil.

reply to post by diggindirt


Sure they could be.

But as many examples as there are of sculptures of people who existed only in the minds eye of the sculptor, there are many more of actual people who were real and existed or were important in some way to the society...religious icons for example.

It's difficult to say if they represented actual people or not, although personally, i tend to imagine they were based on real people, most likely important people of the time.

But that's just an opinion based on gut instinct and feeling that is a lot of work and effort to portray an imaginary person.

LUXUS
reply to post by Spider879

 

Your belief that you always beat me is subject to your own ego.

DNA can tell you everything about the physical makeup of the person including what color their eyes are, if they have kinky or straight hair and if their skin tone will be pale or dark, if dna does not code for these things then what do you suppose does?

A simple off the shelf dna test as carried out by these genealogy company's has limitations (thats what your talking about here) but even they can give you a percentage breakdown of your haplogroup which would tell you if you have ancestry shared by some tribe in Africa or not.

New DNA Test Helps to Identify Hair, Eye Color of Long-Dead People
www.natureworldnews.com...
www.redorbit.com...

" Studies have found two alleles in the vicinity of ASIP are associated with skin color variation in humans. One, rs2424984[27] has been identified as an indicator of skin reflectance in a forensics analysis of human phenotypes across Caucasian, African-American, South Asian, East Asian, Hispanic and Native American populations[28] and is about 3 times more common in non-African populations than in Africa.[29] The other allele, 8188G (rs6058017[30]) is significantly associated with skin colour variation in African-Americans and the ancestral version occurs in only 12% of European and 28% of East Asian samples compared with 80% of West African samples."

Good score on the links but it don't tell the whole story see Mr Nazi above in the vid and the fact that many Western Blacks from a genetic stand point are more related to Europeans than African regardless of how dark the skin is.