|
|
Post by Tukuler al~Takruri on Apr 7, 2010 18:20:50 GMT -5
Is data available on cranial or full osteo seires on Olmeca?
It's premature to type an entire people just based on the
Colossal Heads with wide nose, thick lips, and cornrow
braids. There are other Colossal Heads that do not have
those characterisitics. Ignoring them is a falsification of
who the Olmeca (earliest Mexican civilization) were.
|
|
|
|
Post by sundiata on Apr 7, 2010 21:51:01 GMT -5
^You have a good point. I guess that I was more so asking a question. I'd also like to know of any such studies on skeletal remains of early central Mexico, which may or may not shed light on any such speculation. I may have jumped the gun on neglecting any previously published Olmec statutory as the famously flaunted, broad featured Olmec heads are mostly what I've been exposed to.
Another relevant question would be when do anthropologists suppose the early Native Americans with this broad phenotype either "died out", or began to become indistinct from current Native American populations?
Edit: Oops!! I accidentally deleted my parent post (which is wierd as the thread is still here).
|
|
|
|
Post by clydewin98 on Apr 8, 2010 14:48:48 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by truthcentric on Apr 8, 2010 15:55:09 GMT -5
If blacks can have narrow noses and lips, why can't non-black peoples like Native Americans have wide noses and full lips? I see no reason to suppose that the Olmecs were anything other than Native Americans.
|
|
|
|
Post by sundiata on Apr 8, 2010 16:23:03 GMT -5
^As stated, my hypothesis was rash, but I'm not ignoring the fact either that there were apparently two waves of migrations coming from the direction of Asia, one wave which consisted of groups resembling Australo-Melanesians/Africans and some of the Olmec colossals. "Native American" to that effect, is a generic term since there were apparently Native Americans who looked like modern SE Asians.
I asked the question above, where they went? Though again, this thread has no fluidity without the parent post (which was accidentally deleted). I'm not even sure how you knew what you were responding to.
|
|
|
|
Post by truthcentric on Apr 8, 2010 16:42:44 GMT -5
The two waves of immigrants probably blended into each other to produce modern Native Americans.
|
|
|
|
Post by Tukuler al~Takruri on Apr 8, 2010 17:01:24 GMT -5
Sundiata Don't knock yourself. I think you point out a good line to research. Millenia may indeed separate Olmeca from the Austro-Melanesian Americans but that doesn't mean that Olmeca and other Native Americans with A-M features or African features don't comprise a continuum or are no longer around. Wiercinski found that his Tlatilco series differed not at all from a living series taken of Jalapa and Vera Cruz populations, though he takes it that convergent evolution is the cause rather than descent from any ancient Mexicans. Van Sertima also thinks 20ky is too long for the A-MA not to have melded away. However we have the case of the California Indians who from photographs look very much like A-Ms. Wiercinski compared the ancient Mexican crania to crania from Dongola and there was a 19.2% corelation with the Tlatilco series. This could well support Van Sertima's Egypto-Nubian premise. But our analysis can't be based solely on one examination from over 35 years ago. We have to find something more up to date to go along with it (unless there are no other studies). The biggest hurdle is the reluctance of archaeologists to face possibilities of other than Bering Straight immigrants to the Americas. If anyone can locate and translate the thesis of L.A. Vargas Guadarrama
Estudio de las rasgos craneos discontinuos en la poplacion de Tlatilco
Mexico: ENAH (1973) it would be an emmense help. |
|
|
|
Post by sundiata on Apr 8, 2010 19:33:35 GMT -5
^Thanks Al-Takuri. Such wouldn't seem improbable though I'd agree there are gaps in the data. The physical Anthropology of pre-historic and historic native populations is much more scant than that focused on the African continent which is surprising given the immense amount of genetic diversity in both regions. Btw, would you have access to the text of the study above that you'd like translated? Also, not sure if the source is completely reliable, but it speaks to some of the questions I raised: news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/sci/tech/430944.stmA picture of a lady from South America was also posted, with the caption directly underneath reading: Fuegean Cristina Calderon may be one of the few surviving descendants of the first Americans^Interesting supposition. Another study, seen here from the journal of Human evolution, also mentions similar specimens from Mexico proper, but I can't access the paper to cross references the sources they use. |
|
|
|
Post by beyoku on Apr 9, 2010 10:29:36 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by clydewin98 on Apr 9, 2010 14:40:50 GMT -5
If blacks can have narrow noses and lips, why can't non-black peoples like Native Americans have wide noses and full lips? I see no reason to suppose that the Olmecs were anything other than Native Americans. No one uses only physical features to identify the Olmec as African nationals. |
|
|
|
Post by Tukuler al~Takruri on Apr 9, 2010 14:53:46 GMT -5
I gave the Dongolian data for Tlatilco but that really doesn't address the topic header. The "racial types" Wiercinski used were Ainuid Armenoid Laponoid Mongoloid Pacific Ainuid-Armenoid Subainuid Ainuid-Arctic Ainuid-Equatorial Alpine Turanian Anatolian Armenoid-Bushmenoid Dongolian Central-Asiatic Subpacific Baikalian Laponoid-Equatorial Lowland Pacific-Equatorial Ainuid-Mongoloid I'm not even supposing a guess which of these may be correlated to Australo-Melanesian types though some are very obviously not. Once it's figured out which may be A-M types we can check their data against Olmeca related sites. This will be more toward advancing the hypothesis of the topic header. Anyway, Wiercinski's data does not support an only African Olmeca phenotype. His list makes for a variety of phenotypes with an African one among the selections with SubPacifics appearing twice as more frequently. In fact Wiercinski's SubPacifics seem to dominate across the board. | Racial Type | Zac. | Tlat. | Cerro Mesas | Monte Alban | Teot. | Maya | | Dongolian | | 19.2 | | 2.8 | | 2.7 | | Subpacific | 66.7 | 38.5 | 63.6 | 22.2 | 16.7 | 43.2 | | No. Diagnosed | 6 | 52 | 11 | 36 | 12 | 37 |
|
|
|
|
Post by clydewin98 on Apr 9, 2010 23:22:43 GMT -5
To determine the racial heritage of the ancient Olmecs, Dr. Wiercinski (1972b) used classic diagnostic traits determined by craniometric and cranioscopic methods. These measurements were then compared to a series of three crania sets from Poland, Mongolia and Uganda to represent the three racial categories of mankind.
In Table 1, we have the racial composition of the Olmec skulls. The only European type recorded in this table is the Alpine group which represents only 1.9 percent of the crania from Tlatilco.
Table 1.Olmec Races
Racial Type Tlatilco
Norm Percent Cerro de Mesas
Norm Percent
Subpacific
Dongolan
Subainuid
Pacific
Armenoid
Armenoid-Bushman
Anatolian
Alpine
Ainuid
Ainuid-Arctic
Laponoid-Equatorial
Pacific-Equatorial 20. 38.5
10. 19.2
7 13.5
4 7.7
2 3.9
2 3.9
2 3.9
1 1.9
1 1.9
1 1.9
1 1.9
1. 1.9
________________
52 7. 63.6
--- ----
3 27.3
--- ----
--- ----
1 9.1
--- ---
--- ---
--- ---
--- ---
--- ---
--- ---
________________
11
The other alleged "white" crania from Wiercinski's typology of Olmec crania, represent the Dongolan (19.2 percent), Armenoid (7.7 percent), Armenoid-Bushman (3.9 percent) and Anatolian (3.9 percent). The Dongolan, Anatolian and Armenoid terms are euphemisms for the so-called "Brown Race" "Dynastic Race", "Hamitic Race",and etc., which racist Europeans claimed were the founders of civilization in Africa.
Table 2:
Racial Composition:
Loponoid
Armenoid
Ainuid+Artic
Pacific
Equatorial+Bushman Tlatico
21.2
18.3
10.6
36.5
13.5 Cerro de las Mesas
31.8
4.5
13.6
45.5
4.5
Poe (1997), Keita (1993,1996), Carlson and Gerven (1979)and MacGaffey (1970) have made it clear that these people were Africans or Negroes with so-called 'caucasian features' resulting from genetic drift and microevolution (Keita, 1996; Poe, 1997). This would mean that the racial composition of 26.9 percent of the crania found at Tlatilco and 9.1 percent of crania from Cerro de las Mesas were of African origin.
In Table 2, we record the racial composition of the Olmec according to the Wiercinski (1972b) study. The races recorded in this table are based on the Polish Comparative-Morphological School (PCMS). The PCMS terms are misleading. As mentioned earlier the Dongolan , Armenoid, and Equatorial groups refer to African people with varying facial features which are all Blacks. This is obvious when we look at the iconographic and sculptural evidence used by Wiercinski (1972b) to support his conclusions.
Wiercinski (1972b) compared the physiognomy of the Olmecs to corresponding examples of Olmec sculptures and bas-reliefs on the stelas. For example, Wiercinski (1972b, p.160) makes it clear that the clossal Olmec heads represent the Dongolan type. It is interesting to note that the emperical frequencies of the Dongolan type at Tlatilco is .231, this was more than twice as high as Wiercinski's theorectical figure of .101, for the presence of Dongolans at Tlatilco.
The other possible African type found at Tlatilco and Cerro were the Laponoid group. The Laponoid group represents the Austroloid-Melanesian type of (Negro) Pacific Islander, not the Mongolian type. If we add together the following percent of the Olmecs represented in Table 2, by the Laponoid (21.2%), Equatorial (13.5), and Armenoid (18.3) groups we can assume that at least 53 percent of the Olmecs at Tlatilco were Africans or Blacks. Using the same figures recorded in Table 2 for Cerro,we observe that 40.8 percent of these Olmecs would have been classified as Black if they lived in contemporary America.
|
|
|
|
Post by sundiata on Apr 11, 2010 16:48:19 GMT -5
Yea, thanks. Unfortunately they only examine one skull from Brazil and don't delve as much into discussions about previous excavations in Mexico and central America. Though I cross-referenced some of the sources and came up with more inquiries. It may be helpful to examine the genetic landscape of moderns to reveal any genetic retentions. Gonzalez (2003), who actually studied Austric/PaleoAmerican remains in northern Mexico, writes: -- Craniometric evidence for Palaeoamerican survival in Baja CaliforniaHe believes that the Pericue (a culture that lived in Mexico who were contemporaries of the Olmecs and died out as recent as the 18th century) are direct descendants of Paleo-Indians with this generalized morphology. Edit: Though I just tracked down a DNA study which claims that Pericue DNA was analyzed, and even though they were different morphologically from modern Amerindians, they shared the same haplogroups, suggesting in situ differentiation. www.fumdham.org.br/fumdhamentos7/artigos/14%20Silvia%20Gonzalez.pdf^I'm not sure that I buy that since similar remains have been found, even by the same co-author who discovered Peñon Woman in Mexico city, which would involve convergent evolution in places as diverse as Baja to northeastern Brazil, if gene flow is ruled out as the explanation. Neither would I expect Paleo-Indian DNA to be much different from that observed in Siberia anyhow, as South Asians and Siberians both possess these haplogroups, which I assume are C and Q, if they're discussing Y-Chromosome data (they did not report their DNA results). The survival of this morphology among the Pericue, is still significant imo in determining when these people died out. We see here that people with this "generalized morphology" still existed in Mexico around the time of the Olmecs. No connection can be made, but it opens up more questions. I wish that I had access to that study posted by Al-takuri. |
|
|
|
Post by quetzalcoatl on Apr 12, 2010 9:28:32 GMT -5
an additional piece of information:
Haydenblit R. 1996. “Dental variation among four prehispanic Mexican populations,” American Journal of Physical Anthropology 100 (2 ):225 - 246
"In this paper, the dental morphology of prehispanic Meso-american populations is described, compared, and examined within the context of New World dental variation. Twenty-eight morphological dental traits were studied and compared in four samples of prehispanic Mexican populations. After eliminating intra- and interobserver error, the dental morphological characteristics observed show evidence of heterogeneity among the populations. In particular, the oldest population, Tlatilco (1300-800 BC), was significantly different from the other three groups, Cuicuilco (800-100 BC), Monte Alban (500 BC-700 AD) and Cholula (550-750 AD). When the four samples were compared to other Mongoloid populations, either univariately or multivariately, it was observed that the Mexican groups did not follow a strict Sinodont (characteristic of Northeast Asia)/Sundadont (characteristic of Southeast Asia) classification (Turner [1979] Am. J. Phys. Anthropol. 51:619-636). From the traits examined, 27% presented frequencies consistent with Sinodont variation, while 73% of the traits showed similar incidence to Southeast Asian groups. Multivariately, the Mexican populations were found to fit an overall Sundadont classification. These results indicate that there is more dental morphological variation among American Indian populations than previously shown."
Note that ALL Tlatilco (Wiercinski) skeletons were either sinodont or sundadont. Not ONE modern African population is sundadont or sinodont.
|
|
|
|
Post by clydewin98 on Apr 12, 2010 12:13:56 GMT -5
an additional piece of information: Note that ALL Tlatilco (Wiercinski) skeletons were either sinodont or sundadont. Not ONE modern African population is sundadont or sinodont. You are wrong as usual. The Sundadont pattern is common among African groups. See evidence of Africans with the Sundadont pattern below: books.google.com/books?id=LOg4ZWQes68C&pg=PA86&lpg=PA86&dq=sundadont+africans&source=bl&ots=3UNxbhL_lk&sig=5rebjtYyWoo9BRXJPZA3Mi-ftL8&hl=en&ei=rk7DS9TANsyAnQf9rPDfCQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=3&ved=0CA4Q6AEwAg#v=onepage&q=sundadont%20africans&f=falseThe typical skeletal remains associated with this pattern is the cranium of the Zhoukoudoan Upper Cave in Northern China dating to 18,000 BC see: C.G Turner, Teeth and prehistory in Asia", Scientific American, (Feb. 1989) pp.88-96; and www.uic.edu/classes/osci/osci590/10_1Non-Metric.htm). The Zhoukoudian man was identified as a "Negro" F. Weidenreich ( in Bull. Nat. Hist. Soc. Peiping 13, (1938-30). Mikey Brass in his popular website on the Antiquity of Man (see: www.antiquityofman.com/Palaeoindian_origins.html) noted that: “This ancestral population [of the AmerIndians] could well be represented by hominids similar to the Zhoukoudian Upper Cave people (Kamminga and Wright, 1988; Wright, 1995; Neves and Pucciarelli, 1998) and its ultimate origin can be traced back to Africa. The idea that East Asia was occupied by an Australian-like population by the end of the Pleistocene has gained more support recently. Matsumura and Zuraina (1999) described a very well-preserved skeleton from Gua Gunung, Malaysia. The specimen is aged 10,200 B.P. and is said to be a late representative of a non-specialized morphology, similar to Australian Aborigines, in East Asia. If our inferences are correct, the Americas could ultimately be seen as part of the first expansion of anatomically modern humans out of Africa, which started during the beginning of the Upper Pleistocene. Recent acceptance of Late Pleistocene dates for the occupation of the site of Monte Verde, Chile (Meltzer et al., 1997), “ This means that the first settlers of America, and their decendants in North Asia and the Americas are derived from "Negro " populations. Sketletal remains of the "Negro" type have also been found in southern China. These skeletons date to neolithic sites dating between 6000BC and 4300BC in south China and Southeast Asia. Kwang-Chih Chang in "Prehistoric and early historic culture horizons and traditions in South China, Current Anthropology 5(5) (1964, 359-375) make it clear that these skeletons were predominately Black (p.370). These skeletons were found in Jiangxi, Jiantung and Sichuan, Yunnan and the Pearl River Valley (see K-C Chang, The archaeology of China, 1977,p.76).The Austronesian people are usually refered to as classical mongoloid. The type found in Indonesian is typified by the Tzuyang man. The Blacks in China who spread the sindonty pattern were called li-min, kunlung, Yi and Yueh. These Chinese Blacks may have taken this dental pattern to Japan( see: dienekes.ifreepages.com/blog/archives/000444.html) These Blacks participated in the Hemudu culture located in northern Zhejnang. Hemudu pottery is reminiscent of ceramics found in southeastern China and Taiwan. The Hoabinhian culture of Vietnam and Tapenkeng were charaterized by cord marked pottery. According to T. Chang the skeletons from the initial phase were "Negro" The founders of Xia and Shang civilization spoke Dravidian and African languages. As a result when they were forced from mainland China these people settled the Pacific Islamds.This will explian the African and Dravidian substratum in many Austronesian languages. These Sundadont people also founded the first civilization of India. Archaeological evidence makes it clear that the founders of Mehrgarh were Sundadont people( see: www.grahamhancock.com/underworld/DrSunilAtlantis.php). Thus the first civilization of India was founded by Blacks. The Indians responsible for this civilization was probably the Munda. In my website on the Pacific migration of Africans I point out that many of the cognate toponyms for Africa and the Pacific are found in areas which were only recently settled by African groups so the expansion of other Africans into the Pacific had to have occurned after 1500 BC. The skeletal and teeth evidence make it clear that we must recognize an African/Black influence on the raise of the Northeast Asians and Americas. Let's not forget that Luiza, one of the oldest skeletons found in Brazil, is described as a "Negro" . Given the identification of Luiza as a Negro, she could have come from Africa, the Pacific Islands or the mainland, or Australia. This also makes it clear that their is little difference between Negroes in Africa and the Pacific. See my website at: > www.olmec98.net/pac1.htm |
|
