Archaeologica.org

all i said was that you agree with the scholar who says they came from west Africa
who's world is that ?

Once again - I didn't say they came from West Africa.

I said that it was a long way from Egypt to West Africa.

I cited no scholar for that statement.

However, I can read a map without anyone's help.

Beagle wrote:Once again - I didn't say they came from West Africa.

"The flat wide nose is a feature most often found on the west coast of Africa."

uhuh

Nice quote - what's your point. Come on out of that box you're in Marduk.

no point
i just thought you'd forgotten what you just said

I am back from Google. The closest I could come to is this:

http://exchanges.state.gov/culprop/iraq/00000021.htm

However, I have my doubts about the negroid features.

However, I have my doubts about the negroid features

i am not the only one and in going back to look again at the faces on the website, one can find that not all the faces have a flat nose.

what is the date on these faces anyways? all marduk mentioned was that they might be pre-olmec. does anyone have any idea?

Most people agree on around 1200bc for the start of the Olmec culture. I have personally never before heard the theory that the Olmec heads weren't made by them. Perhaps Marduk will oblige us with some data about it. I find the idea fascinating and would love to hear more.

the earliest confirmed date for any olmec centre is 1500bce
its called the formative period
the classic olmec period is known rom two centres of civilisation
the first San Lorenzo from 1,200-900 BCE, and the second La Venta, reached its peak later, 900-600 BCE.
there were ten heads found at San lorenzo which had been bought 60 km from the Tuxtla mountains. some of them weighed up to 18 tons. that may seem incredible but on a megalithic scale its quite small and primitive
a recent documemtary crew setting out to show how it was done had no trouble carving a similar head but failed when they tried to get it onto a raft for the journey. they lacked the expertise to position it evenly and the raft got stuck in the mud at the river bank. The olmec sites were characterised by large water features such as the u shaped basalt troughs carved at lorenzo which formed a primitive kind of water distribution system
the heads were found defaced and buried and there are two main theories for this

1. it was the work of enemies that invaded the site
2. it was done by commoners who rebelled against chiefly rule
3. it was a ritual means of "decommissioning" the sculptures as sacred objects

the problem with the first theory is that there was no one around who was strong enough to take on the olmec
the problem with the lasttheory is that there it is unknown anywhere else in this society. In mesoamerica in general the belief was that sacred objects gained value with age, so it would be a bit like scrapping your mustang because it had suddenly become a classic car
the idea that it was done by commoners is the most likely and the commoners from their statues don't resemble the olmec heads at all
some of their relics show what appear to be chinese stereotypes

but thats most likely a result of stylisation
the ones that really don't fit show what look like europeans with beards


so from all this there are no easy answers
the appearence of the olmec heads and figures could easily be the result of stylisation
the beards on their own just mean that at some point there was a memory of people with beards, which isn't surprising when you remember that at some point in their history the Olmecs started off in Asia as did all the mesoamerican tribes and theres no evidence that the olmecs were incapable of growing their own beards.
so it doesn't prove anything either way
thats why the helmets are so important
contrary to poular belief every soldier in the ancient world was not issued with a sword and shield when they signed up
in many cases the weapons were inherited through the family and it wasn't until millenia later that armies were equipped with helmets as a matter of course.
the ones that the olmecs wear are of such a unique design that doesn't match anything else in their civilisation
but you know
people look at the noses and go
"oooh look africans"

the earliest confirmed date for any olmec centre is 1500bce
its called the formative period
the classic olmec period is known rom two centres of civilisation

where is your link to back this up?

in many cases the weapons were inherited through the family and it wasn't until millenia later that armies were equipped with helmets as a matter of course

and this among eveything else youhave said? are we just supposed to take your word for it?

Most people agree on around 1200bc for the start of the Olmec culture. I have personally never before heard the theory that the Olmec heads weren't made by them.

thank you starflower, so it is possible that these heads were made by the olmecs then.

we agreed not to respond to each others posts
if you'd like me to start responding to yours again you let me know
until then
shut it

contrary to poular belief every soldier in the ancient world was not issued with a sword and shield when they signed up

True to a point and data for many ancient armies is lacking. The Greeks, who maintained the hoplite form for centuries, only allowed citizens to fight (unless they hired a mercenary unit) and expected each citizen to arm and equip himself as a proper hoplite. Everyone understood what this meant and no one would show up for muster wearing pink leotards and carrying a broom.

Likewise the Romans also required citizens to equip themselves as one of the main military classes dependent on their wealth. While they would doubtless have different colors and variants on various items dependent on the armourer who made them, a hastati was expected to be armed as a hastati and a principes was expected to be armed as a principes.

Both Roman and Greek forces required helmets and it would not have been unusual for similar patterns to have been used.

On a quick search I noted that in carvings the Assyrian army was always depicted wearing helmets although I don't know enough about them to know how they were recruited. I couldn't find enough images of the Babylonians to be able to tell. A carving of Persian troops shows them with helmets but the Persian army which moved on Greece was drawn from so many distant kingdoms that generalizing is impossible.

The Egyptians, other than the nobles, basically fought in a loincloth as an accomodation to the heat. One supposes that they supplied their own loin cloth.

However, the point is that simply the fact that helmets (or any other piece of arms or armor) were not issued by the state is irrelevant. A certain uniformity of appearance could be anticipated merely from the fact that armourers working in a given cultural area would produce similar looking items, much as the Greeks (Corinthian) or Roman (Montefortino) helmets maintained their basic look for centuries at a time.

If there was an unknown West African kingdom which interacted with the Americas they could have worn anything from feathers to yarmulkes and we wouldn't know anything about it....except from the remaining art work.

we agreed not to respond to each others posts

i don't recall agreeing to that besides you never have anything to say that is constructive or to the point.

until then
shut it

sorry but not your call, you are posting in a forum that is open to the public who are free to reply as they wish to whatever topic that strikes them as interesting.

Nice pics of artwork posted Marduk. They all are very worthy of discussion but the one on the bottom right speaks for itself as far as your original post goes.