African skeletons and Olmec Sites
Clyde A. Winters
Cameron Wesson maintains that (1) the Olmecs did not occupy the sites
of Monte Alban and Tlatilco; and (2) there are no skeletons found on Olmec
sites prior to the 1993 excavations of Ann Cyphers at San Lorenzo.
Although Wesson claims to have read all the literature in this area, his
arguments are false and indicate his ignorance of the contemporary literature
on Olmec cultural history.
Richard A. Diehl and Michael Coe maintain that the inspiration of
Olmec Horizon A, common to San Lorenzo Initial Olmec Period, have been
found at Tlatilco (Gutherie, 1996, p.11 ; Sharer & Grove, 1989, p.70).
Moreover much of the pottery at Tlatilco is marked with Olmec symbols.
Monte Alban was also settled by the Olmecs. Ignacio Bernal discussed
in detail the Olmec influence at Monte Alban (Bernal, 1969). Bernal
refers to Monte Alban as Colonial Olmecs because many of the people here
were "principally ...local people" (Bernal, 1969, p.12).
There have been many Africanoid skeletons found in Mexico. A common
trait of the African skulls found in Mexico include marked
prognathousness and prominent cheek bones (Marquez,1956, pp.179-180).
Wiercinski, gave a full account of his discovery of African skeletons
reported at the 41st Congress of Americanists in Mexico, in <The New
Diffusionist>, vol.5, no.18 (1975) p.5. Here he made it clear that
the Olmecs were of African character, and that at the colonial Olmec
sites most of the skeletons were of African males and females of a
racially distinct type. This supports Bernal's view that sites such as
Monte Alban included a large "local population" in addition to the Olmecs.
Wesson is dead wrong when he claims that Ann Cyphers was the first to
excavate skeletons in Olmec land in 1993. He contradicts himself in the
same piece when he refers to the Tlatilco remains he examined. This makes
his comments about the work of Wiercinski highly speculative since, he
admits that skeletons from this site are spread throughout Mexico.
Granted, the Olmecs skeletons do show cranial deformations. But this
fronto-occipital deformation would not disguise other prominent features
associated with African craniums. Moreover cranial deformation was common
among African neolithic and contemporary skulls (please refer to
<L'Anthropologie>, vol.17, (1906) p.136).
Many Olmec skeletons have been found at other Olmec sites besides
Tlatilco. One of the earliest Olmec skeletons to be found at the Olmec
site of Veracruz was reported by Drucker in 1943. M. Pailles (1980) gives
a detailed account of the Olmec skeletons excavated at Vera Cruz and Chiapas.
All of these skeletal remains from Olmec sites clearly prove the lack of
knowledge Wesson has concerning the Olmec skeletons.
I have posted references to practically all of my relavent postings.
People make negative comments to my postings without citations or they
use conjecture, like Wesson to try and prove a counterpoint. This is
unacceptable. If you have a point to prove give us your sources then the
readers can make their own decision. And if you are not too familiar
with a field remain silent.
Wesson appears to be interested in defeating the purposes of the
Afrocentrist. This is a mistake. As a scholar one should seek the truth
even if it may not be accepted by the status quo. I am a truth seeker.
"Knowledge is Power, but the darkness of ignorance, is darkness indeed".
References
Bernal, I.(1969). <The Olmec World>, University of Claifornia Press.
Guthrie,J.(Ed.). (1996). <The Olmec World: Ritual and Rulership>, The Art
Museum, Princeton University .
Marquez, C. (1956). <Estudios arqueologicas y ethnograficos>, Mexico.
Paelles, M. (1980). "Pampa el Pajon an Early Estuarine site in Chiapas Mexico
", <Papers of the New World Archaeological Foundation>, no.44.
Sharer, R. J. & Grove, D.C.(Ed.).(1989).<Regional Perspective on the
Olmecs>, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
C.A. Winters
Carlos May
Clyde A. Winters (cwi...@orion.it.luc.edu) wrote:
: Cameron Wesson maintains that (1) the Olmecs did not occupy the sites
: sites prior to the 1993 excavations of Ann Cyphers at San Lorenzo.
: Although Wesson claims to have read all the literature in this area, his
: arguments are false and indicate his ignorance of the contemporary literature
: on Olmec cultural history.
: Richard A. Diehl and Michael Coe maintain that the inspiration of
: Olmec Horizon A, common to San Lorenzo Initial Olmec Period, have been
: found at Tlatilco (Gutherie, 1996, p.11 ; Sharer & Grove, 1989, p.70).
: Moreover much of the pottery at Tlatilco is marked with Olmec symbols.
: Monte Alban was also settled by the Olmecs. Ignacio Bernal discussed
: in detail the Olmec influence at Monte Alban (Bernal, 1969).
[snip]
Am I correct in understanding that you define any MesoAmerican site
where there has been apparent Olmec influence to be Olmec?
Your definition of what constitutes an "Olmec" site seems to differ
from the usually understood use of the term. Perhaps this has lead
to some misunderstanding. If we are refering to sites such as
Tlatilco and Monte Alban, in addition to the Gulf Coast area
sites usually associated with the label "Olmec", perhaps we should
instead simply refer to "Pre-Classic MesoAmerican sites" rather
than "Olmec"?
: There have been many Africanoid skeletons found in Mexico. A common
: trait of the African skulls found in Mexico include marked
: prognathousness and prominent cheek bones (Marquez,1956, pp.179-180).
Would you argue that jutting jaw (prognathousness) and prominet cheek
bones are lacking in the indiginous population of MesoAmerica?
Perhaps we should get some experts on physical, as opposed to cultural,
anthropology in on this. Much of what I repeatedly heard argued as
clearly foreign facial traits seem to me to be present in some of the
indiginous population of the area today (eg, wide noses, prominet
cheek bones, thick lips). Do Mexican and Guatemalan Indians have
such features because of African etc ancestry? I would immagine
that the science of genetics could shead some light on this question.
[snip...]
: Wesson appears to be interested in defeating the purposes of the
: Afrocentrist. This is a mistake. As a scholar one should seek the truth
: even if it may not be accepted by the status quo. I am a truth seeker.
In shared desire for seeking truth through physical evidence,
--
C.M. fro...@neosoft.com
Jeffrey L Baker
On 6 Jul 1996, Clyde A. Winters wrote:
> Cameron Wesson maintains that (1) the Olmecs did not occupy the sites
> of Monte Alban and Tlatilco; and (2) there are no skeletons found on Olmec
> sites prior to the 1993 excavations of Ann Cyphers at San Lorenzo.
> Although Wesson claims to have read all the literature in this area, his
> arguments are false and indicate his ignorance of the contemporary literature
> on Olmec cultural history.
> Richard A. Diehl and Michael Coe maintain that the inspiration of
> Olmec Horizon A, common to San Lorenzo Initial Olmec Period, have been
> found at Tlatilco (Gutherie, 1996, p.11 ; Sharer & Grove, 1989, p.70).
> Moreover much of the pottery at Tlatilco is marked with Olmec symbols.
About 10% of the pottery at Tlatilco is marked with Olmec symbols
(see p. 117 of article by Tolstoy in Sharer & Grove, 1989).
When Tlatilco was first uncovered, the presence of Olmec artifacts in some
of the graves led researchers to assume that the entire site was Olmec.
Subsequent reanalysis has shown that only a small percentage of the pottery
is Olmec, the majority of the symbols on the pottery are indigineous to the
Basin of Mexico. Tlatilco is not an Olmec site. (also see Grove, Chap. 2 in
Sharer & Grove 1989).
>
> Monte Alban was also settled by the Olmecs. Ignacio Bernal discussed
> in detail the Olmec influence at Monte Alban (Bernal, 1969). Bernal
> refers to Monte Alban as Colonial Olmecs because many of the people here
> were "principally ...local people" (Bernal, 1969, p.12).
>
Bernal's ideas have long since been proven false (see Marcus in Sharer &
Grove 1989). The founding of Monte Alban (ca. 500 b.c.) is toward
the end of the major Olmec occupation in Veracruz. The site of San Jose
Mogote (in the valley of Oaxaca) which is contemporaneous with the Olmec
sites does not appear to be Olmec, but does appear to be the predecessor
of Monte Alban.
> Wesson is dead wrong when he claims that Ann Cyphers was the first to
> excavate skeletons in Olmec land in 1993. He contradicts himself in the
> same piece when he refers to the Tlatilco remains he examined. This makes
> his comments about the work of Wiercinski highly speculative since, he
> admits that skeletons from this site are spread throughout Mexico.
Skeletons excavated from the site of Tlatilco are "archived" throughout
Mexico. The museums that the skeletons are stored in is scattered across
the country, and no one is entirely sure which museums have burials.
>
> Many Olmec skeletons have been found at other Olmec sites besides
> Tlatilco. One of the earliest Olmec skeletons to be found at the Olmec
> site of Veracruz was reported by Drucker in 1943. M. Pailles (1980) gives
> a detailed account of the Olmec skeletons excavated at Vera Cruz and Chiapas.
> All of these skeletal remains from Olmec sites clearly prove the lack of
> knowledge Wesson has concerning the Olmec skeletons.
Chiapas does not contain Olmec sites. The only site that might be
"Olmec" and is located outside of the Olmec heartland is the site of
Chalcatzinco.
The Veracruz skeletons mentioned by Pailles are Classic and Postclassic
(after the time of jesus). The Olmec were early and middle preclassic
(1500 b.c. - 500 b.c.)
Everything I have read would agree with Wesson, that no Olmec skeletons
had been found until the one he mentioned.
>
> References
> Bernal, I.(1969). <The Olmec World>, University of Claifornia Press.
> Guthrie,J.(Ed.). (1996). <The Olmec World: Ritual and Rulership>, The Art
> Museum, Princeton University .
> Marquez, C. (1956). <Estudios arqueologicas y ethnograficos>, Mexico.
> Paelles, M. (1980). "Pampa el Pajon an Early Estuarine site in Chiapas Mexico
> ", <Papers of the New World Archaeological Foundation>, no.44.
> Sharer, R. J. & Grove, D.C.(Ed.).(1989).<Regional Perspective on the
> Olmecs>, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Jeff Baker
Matthew Howard Robb
Clyde A. Winters wrote:
>
> Cameron Wesson maintains that (1) the Olmecs did not occupy the sites
> of Monte Alban and Tlatilco; and (2) there are no skeletons found on Olmec
> sites prior to the 1993 excavations of Ann Cyphers at San Lorenzo.
> Although Wesson claims to have read all the literature in this area, his
> arguments are false and indicate his ignorance of the contemporary literature
> on Olmec cultural history.
> Richard A. Diehl and Michael Coe maintain that the inspiration of
> Olmec Horizon A, common to San Lorenzo Initial Olmec Period, have been
> found at Tlatilco (Gutherie, 1996, p.11 ; Sharer & Grove, 1989, p.70).
> Moreover much of the pottery at Tlatilco is marked with Olmec symbols.
>
Jeff Baker has already done a good job of discussing the problem of identifying
Tlatilco as an "Olmec site" (much less Monte Alban); as long as Mr. Winters is
quoting _The Olmec World: Ritual and Rulership_, allo w me to do the same:
"Biologically the Olmec were Native Americans whose Ice Age ancestors
entered the New World from northern Asia via the Bering Strait. This may
come as a surprise to readers familiar with recent sensationalistic claims that
the Olmec were Egyptians, Phoenicians, West Africans, Chinese, or even
refugees from sunken continents. Scholars rightly dismiss such ideas as
outlandish fairy tales and will continue to do so until archaeologists uncover just
one Old World artifact or human skeleton in an Olmec archaeological site. A
verified archaeological find of this sort would be truly revolutionary, but none
has appeard and it is unlikely any will. "
Diehl & Coe, "Olmec Archaeology" in _The Olmec World,: Ritual and
Rulership_, ed. Jill Guthrie (Princeton, 1995).
Matthew Robb
mat...@phoenix.princeton.edu
Christoffer
On Jul 09, 1996 09:39:09 in article <Re: African skeletons and Olmec
Sites>, 'Matthew Howard Robb <mat...@phoenix.princeton.edu>' wrote:
>
>outlandish fairy tales and will continue to do so until archaeologists
uncover
>just
>one Old World artifact or human skeleton in an Olmec archaeological site.
A
>verified archaeological find of this sort would be truly revolutionary,
but
>none
>has appeard and it is unlikely any will. "
>
>Diehl & Coe, "Olmec Archaeology" in _The Olmec World,: Ritual and
>Rulership_, ed. Jill Guthrie (Princeton, 1995).
>
>Matthew Robb
>mat...@phoenix.princeton.edu
complete agreement with Diehl, Coe and (presumably)
Robb. The final phrase ("and it is unlikely any will")
is gratuitous, unscientific and plays into the hands of
the fantasists. Traveling faster than 30mph, the domes
of the Pantheon and Aya Sofia, flying, Chartres, moonwalks,
and circumnavigation of the earth were all deemed not
only unlikely, but impossible. Why the editorial swipes?
Christoffer
Clyde A. Winters
Matthew Howard Robb (mat...@phoenix.princeton.edu) wrote:
: Clyde A. Winters wrote:
: >
: > Cameron Wesson maintains that (1) the Olmecs did not occupy the sites
: > of Monte Alban and Tlatilco; and (2) there are no skeletons found on Olmec
: > sites prior to the 1993 excavations of Ann Cyphers at San Lorenzo.
: > Although Wesson claims to have read all the literature in this area, his
: > arguments are false and indicate his ignorance of the contemporary literature
: > on Olmec cultural history.
: > Richard A. Diehl and Michael Coe maintain that the inspiration of
: > Olmec Horizon A, common to San Lorenzo Initial Olmec Period, have been
: > found at Tlatilco (Gutherie, 1996, p.11 ; Sharer & Grove, 1989, p.70).
: > Moreover much of the pottery at Tlatilco is marked with Olmec symbols.
: >
: > C.A. Winters
: Jeff Baker has already done a good job of discussing the problem of identifying
: Tlatilco as an "Olmec site" (much less Monte Alban); as long as Mr. Winters is
: quoting _The Olmec World: Ritual and Rulership_, allo w me to do the same:
: "Biologically the Olmec were Native Americans whose Ice Age ancestors
: entered the New World from northern Asia via the Bering Strait. This may
: come as a surprise to readers familiar with recent sensationalistic claims that
: the Olmec were Egyptians, Phoenicians, West Africans, Chinese, or even
: refugees from sunken continents. Scholars rightly dismiss such ideas as
: outlandish fairy tales and will continue to do so until archaeologists uncover just
: one Old World artifact or human skeleton in an Olmec archaeological site. A
: verified archaeological find of this sort would be truly revolutionary, but none
: has appeard and it is unlikely any will. "
: Diehl & Coe, "Olmec Archaeology" in _The Olmec World,: Ritual and
: Rulership_, ed. Jill Guthrie (Princeton, 1995).
: Matthew Robb
: mat...@phoenix.princeton.edu
Robb:
This is a fine quote and accurate. But remember the authors of this
articles asked for skeletal remains to prove that Africans were here in
ancient times. I have shown that skeletal remains of Africans were found
here so this proves that Africans were here.
C.A. Winters
Doug Weller
In article <4rv61j$6...@artemis.it.luc.edu>
cwi...@orion.it.luc.edu (Clyde A. Winters) wrote:
[SNIP]
> This is a fine quote and accurate. But remember the authors of this
> articles asked for skeletal remains to prove that Africans were here in
> ancient times. I have shown that skeletal remains of Africans were found
> here so this proves that Africans were here.
>
> C.A. Winters
But you haven't done that. Perhaps you haven't seen the posts
rebutting your argument. I certainly haven't seen any replies from
you to them.
--
Doug Weller Moderator, sci.archaeology.moderated
Co-owner UK-Schools mailing list: email me for details
PHILIP S. Brody
Did the Ann Cyphers excavation of 1993 in San Lorenzo yield an actual
skeleton(s) or was it a grave opening with some very incomplete skeletal
remnants along with buriel offerings. Is there a publication or article
with a description?
PB
Clyde A. Winters
Carlos May (fro...@praline.no.neosoft.com) wrote:
: Clyde A. Winters (cwi...@orion.it.luc.edu) wrote:
: : Cameron Wesson maintains that (1) the Olmecs did not occupy the sites
: : of Monte Alban and Tlatilco; and (2) there are no skeletons found on Olmec
: : sites prior to the 1993 excavations of Ann Cyphers at San Lorenzo.
: : Although Wesson claims to have read all the literature in this area, his
: : arguments are false and indicate his ignorance of the contemporary literature
: : on Olmec cultural history.
: : Richard A. Diehl and Michael Coe maintain that the inspiration of
: : Olmec Horizon A, common to San Lorenzo Initial Olmec Period, have been
: : found at Tlatilco (Gutherie, 1996, p.11 ; Sharer & Grove, 1989, p.70).
: : Moreover much of the pottery at Tlatilco is marked with Olmec symbols.
: : Monte Alban was also settled by the Olmecs. Ignacio Bernal discussed
: : in detail the Olmec influence at Monte Alban (Bernal, 1969).
: [snip]
: Am I correct in understanding that you define any MesoAmerican site
: where there has been apparent Olmec influence to be Olmec?
: Your definition of what constitutes an "Olmec" site seems to differ
: from the usually understood use of the term. Perhaps this has lead
: to some misunderstanding. If we are refering to sites such as
: Tlatilco and Monte Alban, in addition to the Gulf Coast area
: sites usually associated with the label "Olmec", perhaps we should
: instead simply refer to "Pre-Classic MesoAmerican sites" rather
: than "Olmec"?
: : There have been many Africanoid skeletons found in Mexico. A common
: : trait of the African skulls found in Mexico include marked
: : prognathousness and prominent cheek bones (Marquez,1956, pp.179-180).
: Would you argue that jutting jaw (prognathousness) and prominet cheek
: bones are lacking in the indiginous population of MesoAmerica?
: Perhaps we should get some experts on physical, as opposed to cultural,
: anthropology in on this. Much of what I repeatedly heard argued as
: clearly foreign facial traits seem to me to be present in some of the
: indiginous population of the area today (eg, wide noses, prominet
: cheek bones, thick lips). Do Mexican and Guatemalan Indians have
: such features because of African etc ancestry? I would immagine
: that the science of genetics could shead some light on this question.
Yes a geneticist can and has shed light on this question. Peter Underhill
a geneticist at Stanford University traced a mutation in the Y chromosome.
In his study he found that although a Mayan was completely "native in
appearence", he was shown to have a the African Y chromosome. This
suggest that there is an African substratum among the Maya, which may go
back to the Africans who early settled America and not just African slaves.
see:
Sielstad, M.T., Herbert, J. M., Lin, A.A., Underhill, P.A. et al, < Hum.
Mol. Genet> 12, (1994) pp.2159-21-61.
P. A. Underhill, Li Jin, R. Zemans, et al, "A pre-Columbian Y
chromosome-specific transition and its implications for human evolutionay
history", <Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA>, vol. 93, (1996) pp.196-200.
: : Wesson appears to be interested in defeating the purposes of the
: : Afrocentrist. This is a mistake. As a scholar one should seek the truth
: : even if it may not be accepted by the status quo. I am a truth seeker.
: In shared desire for seeking truth through physical evidence,
: --
: C.M. fro...@neosoft.com
I hope this information can help you in finding more sources on the
physical origins of the Mayan people.
C. A. Winters
Clyde A. Winters
Doug Weller (dwe...@ramtops.demon.co.uk) wrote:
: In article <4rv61j$6...@artemis.it.luc.edu>
I have read the post, they have not rebutted my arguments. Both Nancy
McNelly and Peter van Rossum, acknowledge their disagreement with the
findings of Wiercinski, yet they show that he is a well respected scientist
and provide more references to his work. We can all disagree over a matter
and never really change our views.
All I have tried to due in this matter is present evidence from the
finding of scholars relative to skeletons in ancient America. I believe I
accomplished this goal and in the process we all had a good discussion. I
have learned much from this posting and I hope other readers have had
similar results. A discussion on the internet is not a war. It is an
exchange of information. We will disagree, get over excited, and look
silly at times. But we must all remember that knowledge can only advance
if we all attempt to be civil in all matters. Take Care.
Cheers
C. A. Winters
Peter van Rossum
In article <4s1akb$2...@artemis.it.luc.edu> cwi...@orion.it.luc.edu (Clyde A. Winters) writes:
>Doug Weller (dwe...@ramtops.demon.co.uk) wrote:
>: But you haven't done that. Perhaps you haven't seen the posts
>: rebutting your argument. I certainly haven't seen any replies from
>: you to them.
>
>: Doug Weller Moderator, sci.archaeology.moderated
>
>I have read the post, they have not rebutted my arguments. Both Nancy
>McNelly and Peter van Rossum, acknowledge their disagreement with the
>findings of Wiercinski, yet they show that he is a well respected scientist
>and provide more references to his work. We can all disagree over a matter
>and never really change our views.
Mr. Winter,
You seem to have missed the full import of the posts which have been
written so I will make one last attempt to explain them to you. You
say you're a seeker of the truth, so I bring you these ten truths:
1. I was the only one (yourself included) who actually made an attempt
to ascertain the credentials of Wiercinski. I found that he has
published other material in peer-reviewed physical anthropological
journals. Based on this I concluded that he shouldn't be dismissed
out of hand as a crank since at least some of his research has
scientific merit. Whether or not he is "well-respected" by his peers,
I cannot say.
2. At present there is no evidence of the use of metal by *any*
Preclassic culture in Mesoamerica. This tends to argue against
the idea of significant contacts between Mesoamerican Preclassic
cultures and any culture which had developed metallurgy by this time.
3. The burials cited by yourself in Pailles' 1980 publication are *not*
Olmec burials.
4. Many Mesoamerican archaeologists today believe the Olmec style and the
Olmec people who lived in the Gulf Coast of Mexico 1500-500 B.C. are
*not* equivalent. Therefore just because "Olmec style" objects are
found at a site, it is not conclusive evidence of direct contact with
the people living in the Gulf Coast region. Therefore, it is
controversial to conclude that Tlatilco is an Olmec site. Here it
becomes a matter of definition as to what the term Olmec means - see
Grove's and Diehl's papers in "Regional Perspectives on the Olmec"
5. As stated by Mr. Baker, Monte Alban is *not* an Olmec site. Bernal's
book is excellent but now somewhat dated. On this matter, further
research showed him to be incorrect. Joyce Marcus and Kent Flannery's
1996 book "Zapotec Civilization" is an excellent summary of current
archaeological knowledge on the Prehispanic Valley of Oaxaca.
6. The term race as applied to humans has *no* genetic/biological basis.
To better understand this, do yourself a favor and pick up any recent
Intro to Anthropology text to read the section on race - its very
interesting.
7. Because of point 6, it is *never* possible to use cranial measurements,
skeletal measurements, hair samples, blood samples, the "look" of
colossal heads, etc., to "prove for certain" that African peoples
traveled to the New World. True scientists use many lines of
evidence to decide which of competing hypotheses is best supported
by the data - they *never* prove anything for certain.
8. In our posts, Ms. McNelly and I did not "acknowledge" our disagreement
with Wiercinski. Based on points 6 & 7, we *demonstrated* that his
study is methodologically and theoretically flawed. This directly
rebuts your use of it as evidence supporting your position.
9. The flaws in Wiercinski's research are so profound that it *cannot*
be used to support the conclusion that there were skeletons of
recent African descent in the burials of Tlatilco, Monte Alban, or
Cerro de las Mesas.
10. Mesoamerican archaeologists are *not* using their position to
"maintain the status quo" or "hide the truth". The reason virtually
all of them reject the idea of significant Old World-New World
contacts is because they don't see any evidence for it.
> All I have tried to due in this matter is present evidence from the
>finding of scholars relative to skeletons in ancient America. I believe I
>accomplished this goal and in the process we all had a good discussion. I
>have learned much from this posting and I hope other readers have had
>similar results.
I hope you demonstrate what you've learned by acknowledging the truth
of the points listed above (or explain why they are wrong). If you
wish to continue studying the Olmec, more power to you. But please
keep an open mind to the idea that Native American populations
independently produced complex civilizations by their own efforts -
just as African peoples produced wonders by theirs.
If you truly are a truth seeker, you will abandon the statement that
Wiercinski's research "proves there were Africans in Olmec sites."
Please pass this info on to any other Afrocentrists you know.
I would also suggest that in the future when you read a secondary
account of an article which claims to "prove" anything, you go back
to the original source and read it with a critical eye - even if it
supports your position.
>A discussion on the internet is not a war. It is an
>exchange of information. We will disagree, get over excited, and look
>silly at times. But we must all remember that knowledge can only advance
>if we all attempt to be civil in all matters. Take Care.
On this point we are in total agreement. I think that everyone in this
group has behaved in a very civil manner. and at the very least we've all
learned who Wiercinski is and why his study is flawed.
>Cheers
>C. A. Winters
Best of luck,
Peter van Rossum
PMV...@PSU.EDU
Cameron Wesson
On 6 Jul 1996, Clyde A. Winters wrote:
> Cameron Wesson maintains that (1) the Olmecs did not occupy the sites
> of Monte Alban and Tlatilco; and (2) there are no skeletons found on Olmec
> sites prior to the 1993 excavations of Ann Cyphers at San Lorenzo.
> Although Wesson claims to have read all the literature in this area, his
> arguments are false and indicate his ignorance of the contemporary literature
> on Olmec cultural history.
Did I? Where did I claim to be the all sentient Olmec specialist? Is
this perhaps your own dillusion of self-importance? I simply replied to
your post with a point-by-point assessment of many of your underlying
assertions.
> Richard A. Diehl and Michael Coe maintain that the inspiration of
> Olmec Horizon A, common to San Lorenzo Initial Olmec Period, have been
> found at Tlatilco (Gutherie, 1996, p.11 ; Sharer & Grove, 1989, p.70).
> Moreover much of the pottery at Tlatilco is marked with Olmec symbols.
As I indicated in my original post, these DO NOT make these people
Olmec! Perhaps you need to read up on "trade". MOST contemporary
scholars are much more reserved in their use of "Olmec" as a culture or
ethnic group. There are certainly Olmec trade goods and "Olmec-inspired"
artistic traditions throughout Latin America, but this does not make
these people Olmec. If 10% of your assemblage is Olmec-like does that
make you Olmec?
> Monte Alban was also settled by the Olmecs. Ignacio Bernal discussed
> in detail the Olmec influence at Monte Alban (Bernal, 1969). Bernal
> refers to Monte Alban as Colonial Olmecs because many of the people here
> were "principally ...local people" (Bernal, 1969, p.12).
Read some contemporary materials and you will see that this is not the
currently held belief by most scholars. Again, you seem to confuse the
term "influenced" with these people actually being genetically or
culturally Olmec. This is a flaw that plagues your entire post.
> There have been many Africanoid skeletons found in Mexico. A common
> trait of the African skulls found in Mexico include marked
> prognathousness and prominent cheek bones (Marquez,1956, pp.179-180).
So what? Do you think this proves your point? Wouldn't contemporary
African skulls in slave cemeteries in the Southeastern U.S. have similar
features? The point is, can you "scientifically" (statistically) use
this as a measure of race by sight alone? MOST physical anthropologists
would require more than one non-metrical evaluation to race a skull.
> Wiercinski, gave a full account of his discovery of African skeletons
> reported at the 41st Congress of Americanists in Mexico, in <The New
> Diffusionist>, vol.5, no.18 (1975) p.5. Here he made it clear that
> the Olmecs were of African character, and that at the colonial Olmec
> sites most of the skeletons were of African males and females of a
> racially distinct type. This supports Bernal's view that sites such as
> Monte Alban included a large "local population" in addition to the Olmecs.
So we should simply accept his claims without criticism? Obviously you
aren't familiar with the scientific method or haven't attended an SAA
meeting. Remember "Cold Fusion"? Should we have simply accepted those
claims without further analysis?
> Wesson is dead wrong when he claims that Ann Cyphers was the first to
> excavate skeletons in Olmec land in 1993. He contradicts himself in the
> same piece when he refers to the Tlatilco remains he examined. This makes
> his comments about the work of Wiercinski highly speculative since, he
> admits that skeletons from this site are spread throughout Mexico.
As stated earlier, current scholars DO NOT view Tlatilco as Olmec, but as
a Central Mexican trading partner with the Gulf Coast. Perhaps your
reading comprehension skills are the source of this recurring problem of
not understanding what someone else wrote! As I said in my original
post, and again several time here, Tlatilco is not Olmec, therefore,
there is no contradiction. Perhaps you would be better off trying to
convince us that Tlatilco is indeed Olmec, since most scholars disagree
with your claims.
> Granted, the Olmecs skeletons do show cranial deformations. But this
> fronto-occipital deformation would not disguise other prominent features
> associated with African craniums. Moreover cranial deformation was common
> among African neolithic and contemporary skulls (please refer to
> <L'Anthropologie>, vol.17, (1906) p.136).
Perhaps you need a refresher osteology course. You CANNOT use
non-metrical traits to race a skull with anything more than 50% accuracy.
> Many Olmec skeletons have been found at other Olmec sites besides
> Tlatilco. One of the earliest Olmec skeletons to be found at the Olmec
> site of Veracruz was reported by Drucker in 1943. M. Pailles (1980) gives
> a detailed account of the Olmec skeletons excavated at Vera Cruz and Chiapas.
> All of these skeletal remains from Olmec sites clearly prove the lack of
> knowledge Wesson has concerning the Olmec skeletons.
Pardon me, but I think you and I chose do define Olmec in very different
terms. Perhaps this is the genesis of our misunderstanding.
> I have posted references to practically all of my relavent postings.
> People make negative comments to my postings without citations or they
> use conjecture, like Wesson to try and prove a counterpoint. This is
> unacceptable. If you have a point to prove give us your sources then the
> readers can make their own decision. And if you are not too familiar
> with a field remain silent.
>
> Wesson appears to be interested in defeating the purposes of the
> Afrocentrist. This is a mistake. As a scholar one should seek the truth
> even if it may not be accepted by the status quo. I am a truth seeker.
Please, the martyr bit is getting a bit old. It appears to me that you
are committed to a proposition, regardless of the evidence. Can you
truthfully base an entire belief system on the one obscure article?
Perhaps you are just so hungry for any support for your
hyper-diffusionism that any evidence will do, regardless of its validity.
> "Knowledge is Power, but the darkness of ignorance, is darkness indeed".
How bitterly ironic for you!
Cameron Wesson.
Cameron Wesson
Very good question. Perhaps a little clarification is needed. My wife,
Maria Aviles, worked with Ann Cyphers at San Lorenzo in 1993, along with
Antonio Vega and other scholars I know both personally and
professionally. They uncovered two intact skeletons, although the
preservation could have been better. We have probably 20 or so slides
showing the burials, and they are indeed intact human remains in Olmec
contexts. As far as I know, they were published in Ann Cypher's Informe
for INHA at that time. A core complete publication of all of Ann's work
at San Lorenzo is much awaited, and probably due in the next 2-3 years.
Cameron Wesson.
Peter van Rossum
In article <4s1a4k$2...@artemis.it.luc.edu> cwi...@orion.it.luc.edu (Clyde A. Winters) writes:
Carlos May (fro...@praline.no.neosoft.com) wrote:
>:[deletions]
>: cheek bones, thick lips). Do Mexican and Guatemalan Indians have
>: such features because of African etc ancestry? I would immagine
>: that the science of genetics could shead some light on this question.
>
>Yes a geneticist can and has shed light on this question. Peter Underhill
>a geneticist at Stanford University traced a mutation in the Y chromosome.
>In his study he found that although a Mayan was completely "native in
>appearence", he was shown to have a the African Y chromosome. This
>suggest that there is an African substratum among the Maya, which may go
>back to the Africans who early settled America and not just African slaves.
>see:
>Seielstad, M.T., Herbert, J. M., Lin, A.A., Underhill, P.A. et al, < Hum.
>Mol. Genet> 12, (1994) pp.2159-21-61.
While you might feel confident concluding that this is good evidence
of Precolumbian African-Mesoamerican contact, the authors of the study
don't seem to agree with you. They suggest the transition occurred due
to African admixture "several generations ago" (Sielstad et al. 1994:2159).
I read this as meaning maybe 100 years or so ago, not the 2-3000 years
you want. In fact they state that they can't even rule out the possibility
that the mutation occurred independently in the New World - although they
don't favor this interpretation (Seielstad et al. 1994:2161).
You have given no reason why anyone should reject the author's
conclusions in favor of yours.
>P. A. Underhill, Li Jin, R. Zemans, et al, "A pre-Columbian Y
>chromosome-specific transition and its implications for human evolutionay
>history", <Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA>, vol. 93, (1996) pp.196-200.
In the Underhill et al. paper they located a Y chromosome point mutation
in 90+% of their South and Central American sample, about 50% of their
North American sample and 0% in their Old World sample. From this they
think the mutation was, "introduced exclusively during early stages of
human habitation of the Americas" (Underhill et al. 1996:196).
Far from being suggestive of Precolumbian African contacts, they
conclude there was the typical Asia->Americas migration most
archaeologists believe in, with some genetic admixture since
European contacts in 1520 A.D.
In both cases the authors of the study do not use their data to
support your argument, they use it to bolster the traditional view.
Unless you can provide evidence to show that the data better
support your view than theirs, I have more confidence in the
conclusions about genetic data reached by the geneticists who
performed the study.
>C. A. Winters
Peter van Rossum
PMV...@PSU.EDU
N.A.F. McNelly
In article <4s1akb$2...@artemis.it.luc.edu> C.A. Winters wrote:
:I have read the post, they have not rebutted my arguments. Both Nancy
:McNelly and Peter van Rossum, acknowledge their disagreement with the
:findings of Wiercinski, yet they show that he is a well respected scientist
:and provide more references to his work. We can all disagree over a matter
:and never really change our views.
I am having a bit of trouble swallowing due to the words that have
just been put in my mouth. Here's what I actually said:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Speaking as an anatomist, I have 2 comments:
(1) I have never so much as heard of any such speciality as "craniology".
(2) There is known to be significant overlap in skeletal structure
of the various races. The best you can do is assign probabilities,
not make firm statements. Anyone who says that 13.5% of skeletons
found at a site belonged to X race is saying more than he/she could
possibly know with certainty.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
I'll add one more comment: For a scientist to be aware of a factor
that has significant impact on his results, and yet choose to disregard
it so that his theory remains unsullied (as Peter van Rossum felt
might be the case here) is more reprehensible than if the same
omission was due to sheer ignorance.
I know what it's like to "fall in love" with a theory myself, and
I know that it's painful to have to add qualifiers that weaken
the evidence for it. But if you don't do it, you're not doing
science.
.................................................................
Nancy McNelly "Ma in k'ati"
http://www.he.net/~nmcnelly/ Gaspar Antonio Chi
Mayan hieroglyphics. virtual pyramid, & more
N.A.F. McNelly
In article <4s1akb$2...@artemis.it.luc.edu> C.A. Winters wrote:
:I have read the post, they have not rebutted my arguments. Both Nancy
:McNelly and Peter van Rossum, acknowledge their disagreement with the
:findings of Wiercinski, yet they show that he is a well respected scientist
:and provide more references to his work. We can all disagree over a matter
:and never really change our views.
I am having a bit of trouble swallowing due to the words that have
just been put in my mouth. Here's what I actually said:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Speaking as an anatomist, I have 2 comments:
(1) I have never so much as heard of any such speciality as "craniology".
(2) There is known to be significant overlap in skeletal structure
of the various races. The best you can do is assign probabilities,
not make firm statements. Anyone who says that 13.5% of skeletons
found at a site belonged to X race is saying more than he/she could
possibly know with certainty.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
I'll add one more comment: For a scientist to be aware of a factor
that has significant impact on his results, and yet choose to ignore