Archaeologica.org

Sam Salmon wrote:

'Negroid' stone heads depict heads of infants

That is absolute nonsense as anyone who's seen the heads up close (I have) can tell you.

"Absolute nonsense"?

Okay, maybe it's an idea rather than hard established fact but given that the features of these heads are overly large in proportion to the actual size of the cranium (consistent I would suggest with depictions of infants, itself consistent with the apparent Olmec fixation with infancy as evinced in their sculpture) I would question what qualifies your "absolute nonsense" remark.

Had I suggested the heads depict creatures from Barnard's Star fair enough.

And, my friend, I have seen two of these heads up close and on repeated occasions.

Why would a human randomly knock holes all around the head? I would think that a person would sit down and mutilate one persific area, say the face, not
just put pock marks randomly around the sculpture.

Who is to say that the Spanish did not use them for target practice? It's been done before. The Sphinx was worked over by gun fire.

...I have seen two of these heads up close and on repeated occasions.

And did you not see similar features on the boatmen running Pangas across the Rio Grijalva?

Because many of those Pangeros have faces that look a helluva lot like the heads in Parque La Venta.

If I wanted to be argumentative I could drag out the old contention that those who follow your line can't find it in themselves to credit Africans with anything, I still remember in the 70's reading that the heads in La Venta were statues of someone's slaves.

Sam Salmon wrote:

...I have seen two of these heads up close and on repeated occasions.

And did you not see similar features on the boatmen running Pangas across the Rio Grijalva?

Because many of those Pangeros have faces that look a helluva lot like the heads in Parque La Venta.

If I wanted to be argumentative I could drag out the old contention that those who follow your line can't find it in themselves to credit Africans with anything, I still remember in the 70's reading that the heads in La Venta were statues of someone's slaves.

Sorry Sam, but it strikes me that you have already decided to be argumentative and very much have a fixed idea about "those who follow my line" whatever that is supposed to mean. I'm very happy for Africans to be given credit for their achievements (see previous remarks about lack of archaeological research covering Africa itself which thus, unfortunately and quite wrongly, seems to keep that continent in a perceived state of historical limbo which is of course very convenient for those who persist with the myth of it being a nation of 'savages'). Similarly, I do not regard it as being a particularly contentious idea that 'those like myself' might see some sense in crediting an aspect of Mexican culture to actual Mexicans.

I didn't see boatmen running Pangas across the Rio Grijalva so I am in no position to comment upon your suggestion. Perhaps if you might be kind enough to elaborate on this I might see your point, until then I remain uninformed and therefore inevitably unconvinced.

I really don’t think we can use the features of any present population of a location to presume what the features of a previous population was.
There has just been too much movement.
Migrations, slave trade, whatever reason.
This is especially true from the Southern US down to the Amazon.
Native populations decimated and whole economies built on the importation of labor.

kbs2244 wrote:I really don’t think we can use the features of any present population of a location to presume what the features of a previous population was.
There has just been too much movement.
Migrations, slave trade, whatever reason.
This is especially true from the Southern US down to the Amazon.
Native populations decimated and whole economies built on the importation of labor.

Very true, which is also why I'm a little sceptical of the (quoted elsewhere) guy's claim of knowing what language the Olmecs spoke. I'm also sceptical about claims of knowledge of what language the Teotihuacan people spoke and they were a lot more recent than the Olmecs.

kbs2244 wrote:I really don’t think we can use the features of any present population of a location to presume what the features of a previous population was.
There has just been too much movement.
Migrations, slave trade, whatever reason.

Nonsense-as the BBC serties Meet The Ancestors shows.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b008522p/series

And once again just for a fuckin' chuckle:

I didn't see boatmen running Pangas across the Rio Grijalva so I am in no position to comment upon your suggestion. Perhaps if you might be kind enough to elaborate on this I might see your point, until then I remain uninformed and therefore inevitably unconvinced.

So... what are you ACTUALLY saying then?
Humour me. I'm a slow learner, all right!?

Sam Salmon wrote:

...I have seen two of these heads up close and on repeated occasions.

If I wanted to be argumentative I could drag out the old contention that those who follow your line can't find it in themselves to credit Africans with anything, I still remember in the 70's reading that the heads in La Venta were statues of someone's slaves.

WA a racist? Nah ... I don't think so. You obviously don't know him very well, SS.

On the pock marks and smashed in faces, FWIW, the Egyptians would do this to statues of Pharoahs when they wanted to do the most damning thing possible to them ... preventing their soul from having an afterlife, and thus killing not just the person but also the soul. It was something they would reserve for people they really hated.

Of course, they may be no link between Meso America and Egypt ...but that wouldn't stop them necessarily from having similar ritual practises, as we've discovered so often.

More proof that the more things change the more they stay the same...

Cavemen and their relatives in the same village after 3,000 years.....

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/w ... 333514.ece

That really has to buck the odds, Sam!

Considering how many times Germany has been overrun in those 3,000 years it's an amazing find.

I have no doubt that you can find remnants of DNA from the “original” population in many places on the globe.
Especially female passed on DNA.
But that does not equate to the makeup of the entire current population.
The Caribbean has to be the most mixed DNA spot on the globe.
Native, African, South European, North European, East Indian, Hebrew, Chineese,
Any ethnic group with a history of being exploited or of being exploiters, in addition to those being of a entrepreneurial in sprit, has a base there.

Listeros,

My web page on the Olmecs has a large amount of information for anyone interested in studying the Olmecs. The African connection stuff is fantasy and has nothing to do with archaeology.

Here is the URL

Mike Ruggeri's Olmec World
http://tinyurl.com/2ybvek

michaelruggeri wrote:Listeros,

My web page on the Olmecs has a large amount of information for anyone interested in studying the Olmecs. The African connection stuff is fantasy and has nothing to do with archaeology.

Here is the URL

Mike Ruggeri's Olmec World
http://tinyurl.com/2ybvek

Thank you, whoever you may be, some good links to some reputable and familiar names there. Nice also to find this stated:

The moderators filter out ad hominems and science fiction archaeology.

michaelruggeri wrote:....My web page on the Olmecs has a large amount of information for anyone interested in studying the Olmecs. The African connection stuff is fantasy and has nothing to do with archaeology....

Thank You for your succinct and Club-like response-very comforting and oh-so-predictable.

War Arrow wrote:Thank you, whoever you may be, some good links to some reputable and familiar names there....

Nice to see you so comfy.