Olmec of african descent?

I always find the whole idea that people even take the idea the Olmecs were from Africa seriously laughable. I guess it's like 9/11 conspiracy theory, the jets were just holograms projected over missiles, thousands believe it. There isn't even a credible theory they were from Africa, just a fraud perpetrated by a conman who ranks alongside conspiracy theorists and faith healers.   Van Sertima is destroyed here.

Edited by Pytheus - 27-Apr-2011 at 15:45

If you ask me voting will be:There are very much Polynesian features on heads.During last glacial period ,dry lands on this side of America,had been passed by X-men people.

Edited by medenaywe - 27-Apr-2011 at 08:51

The Olmec heads do have some distinctively African features. But how did they manage to cross the ocean?

Kenndo made a post here.  The post and showed article was about a script called Ajami, stated to be a 1000 years old.  Nothing was about the Olmecs or of relevance to the topic.

Edited by Sander - 02-Jun-2010 at 10:26

I happen to believe that the so called Olmec heads, do represent African people! Anyone with a brain and at least one good eye, cannot deny the obvious similarity to many people found now in Africa and also now in the Americas!

The only thing is; 1. do we trust the dating? And, if so, 2. how do we explain them and the current dating?

Regards,

Van Sertima may have been right on some points while wrong on others.   But the main issue is that there are some  representations of Negroid types  in ancient Mexico (  besides Indians and some Caucasoid types )

Edited by Sander - 07-Jan-2010 at 01:04

To red clay:

I wouold have agreed with you years or decadees ago, but in todays environment, where scholars actually go out of their way to accomodate "non-conventional" approachesto history, and where "multi-culturalism" rules the day (often provoking a backlash from closet-racists screaming "white guilt!"), Van Sertima's ideas would be more acceptable or atleast tolerated.

That that hasn't happened shows that even with all the "anti-Eurocentrism" that is around today, his ideas have little merit.

red clay:
"You mean if his ideas were more mainstream they would be more credible. "

Normally no, but in history that's generally the case, since in history ideas are not just fanciful guess-work,. but are often based on textual/archaeological evidence, so it an author has ideas and is able to back them up with sufficient evidence, then more and more other scholars will accept them.

It works in much the same way with science, I figure.

There are exception ofcourse, but for the most part I thin that rule remains valid.

If Van Sertima's ideas were indeed strong, then even if not accepted whole-heartedly, would atleast be mentioned and discussed more often and with more seriousness than they normally are.

I recall reading many years ago a book that discussed his, and other Afrocentric's, ideas and they don't seem to be taken too seriously, atleast by that author and the scholarly sources he cited.

It seems to me that if Van Sertima's ideas were credible, they'd be more mainstream.

I've seen his name before in other "Afrocentric" literature ("Egyptians were black", "Moors were black", "Israelites werw black", "Hannibal/Cleopatra/Beethoven was black", etc...).

That doesn't give his credibility much of a boost.

Closed!