|
Post by truthteacher2007 on Jul 26, 2015 17:02:08 GMT -5
Yup. However, the crucial pt is that the ancient native americans with these oceanic-like skulls didn't get those skulls based on those shared ancestors with oceanic ppl that are discussed in the 2 studies. Both studies show that those oceanic-like skulls are independent of this new found distant relation to Oceanics (older genetic studies since 2004 had already pointed to this too). Also, scholars who had said these ancient skulls looked polynesian were basing them on recent polynesian populations cuz humans only arrived in polynesia around 3k yrs ago. It's just not smart to assume current polynesians and their ancestors of 12k yrs ago (the age of earliest oceanic-like skulls in the americas) had the same shaped skulls given that populations evolve and the time frame in question is so large, 12k yrs. I agree that its possible oceanic people made it to the americas. It's a very good chance they did actually given that they made it all the way to the easter islands which less than 1k miles from s america. Like you said they would've been very small in # given the small population of the easter islands. But import too they would've arrived quite late, no more than a few 100 yrs before the spanish. So perhaps I'm opening a can of worms here, but with this in mind, what do you make of the Olmec heads? I hold no stock in the idea that they were Africans for a few reasons, #1: there isn't anything like Olmec heads anywhere in West Africa, no similarity of architecture etc. #2 and for me most importantly, American cultures were all stone age technologies while West Africans were metallurgic societies. If Africans had regular contact, I don't see how they would have neglected trade in metal or brought the knowledge with them. Oceanic people on the other hand do have similar features, an expertise of open water navigation, a tradition of carving monumental heads and were also a stone age technological society. Then again, they could simply be MesoAmericans. Whose to say that those features weren't a part of the physical diversity of the region? Them's my thoughts, what's yours?
|
|
|
Post by nebsen on Jul 26, 2015 21:21:58 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by africurious on Jul 26, 2015 22:45:10 GMT -5
Yup. However, the crucial pt is that the ancient native americans with these oceanic-like skulls didn't get those skulls based on those shared ancestors with oceanic ppl that are discussed in the 2 studies. Both studies show that those oceanic-like skulls are independent of this new found distant relation to Oceanics (older genetic studies since 2004 had already pointed to this too). Also, scholars who had said these ancient skulls looked polynesian were basing them on recent polynesian populations cuz humans only arrived in polynesia around 3k yrs ago. It's just not smart to assume current polynesians and their ancestors of 12k yrs ago (the age of earliest oceanic-like skulls in the americas) had the same shaped skulls given that populations evolve and the time frame in question is so large, 12k yrs. I agree that its possible oceanic people made it to the americas. It's a very good chance they did actually given that they made it all the way to the easter islands which less than 1k miles from s america. Like you said they would've been very small in # given the small population of the easter islands. But import too they would've arrived quite late, no more than a few 100 yrs before the spanish. So perhaps I'm opening a can of worms here, but with this in mind, what do you make of the Olmec heads? I hold no stock in the idea that they were Africans for a few reasons, #1: there isn't anything like Olmec heads anywhere in West Africa, no similarity of architecture etc. #2 and for me most importantly, American cultures were all stone age technologies while West Africans were metallurgic societies. If Africans had regular contact, I don't see how they would have neglected trade in metal or brought the knowledge with them. Oceanic people on the other hand do have similar features, an expertise of open water navigation, a tradition of carving monumental heads and were also a stone age technological society. Then again, they could simply be MesoAmericans. Whose to say that those features weren't a part of the physical diversity of the region? Them's my thoughts, what's yours? For the reasons you mentioned, among others, I also don't see the Olmecs as being africans. Van Sertima's evidence made me consider africans reaching the americas but that evidence turned out to be poor after reading critiques of it. The Olmecs were also way too far back in history to be Oceanics. I believe they were just part of the physical diversity of the region as you suggested. In your earlier post you really hit the nail on the head when you mentioned how native americans vary in their looks. People aren't often aware. And in a large country like mexico the variation is likely to be significant. Look at the pics of 2 mexicans at the top of page 426 in this article: www.academia.edu/199927/Robbing_Native_American_Cultures_Van_Sertimas_Afrocentricity_and_the_Olmecs. They look similar to the Olmec heads and these are ppl who are actually from the region the Olmecs lived.
|
|