A Conversation for The Olmecs

You've missed something

Post 1

djsdude

I am surprised that this entry hasn't already been accepted and edited. It's very thorough. Apart from failing to mention that the carved stone heads of the Olmecs have African features, which is a mystery still to solved.


You've missed something

Post 2

~ jwf ~ scribblo ergo sum

And the fact that many of the faces are staring straight up to the sky. These statues are also much older than the current dogma of standard archeology will admit.
*Isn't it funny that I was going to comment to djsdude's question about 360 (divide it by 12) when I saw he was replying to this and then I read 'that' - and I wanted to say something about clinical depression too - but there's a show coming on telly just now about how all the ancient civilisations knew more than we do so....*
later..


You've missed something

Post 3

djsdude

30 days in a month X 12. mmm! Time sure ain't what it used to be.

Loved yer page you flashy git. (Do the Mods allow us to say git?)


You've missed something

Post 4

~ jwf ~ scribblo ergo sum

Well, that show on the TV was a real surprise. I was expecting yet another 'radical' archeologist to show how all the known ancient civilisation were linked - the 'diffusion theory' that Thor Hyerdhal was trying to prove possible. There is much talk these days about the commonality of astrological observation, star charts/mythologies, pyramid buildings, mummification... The theory goes that all ancient civilisation had a single source culture (sometimes attributed to Atlantis or somesuch).

Instead, this guy argued that every civilisation evolved in relative isolation. There's a huge isolated valley somewhere in Mexico where a large pyramid temple city that once had 30,000 citizens sits atop a high hill in the middle of the valley. It was originally thought to be typically Aztec, part of their 'empire' but no one could explain that the language and architectural stylings, while similar, were none-the-less unique. Then they discovered earlier villages around the valley floor - carbon dated to 5000 years ago with the same (but more rudimentary) language symbols and stone-carving styles - and eventually in the mountains and hills around the valley - early (9000 year old) cave dwellings with evidence that these were ancestors of the people who built the city. (Zapatecs he called them)
His conclusion is that this society eveolved from cave dwellers to village farmers to city dwellers (overlooking a vast agricultural plain) with no - absolutely none - outside influence. And from this he concludes that most 'early civilisations' evolved relatively independently and not from one really ancient, now lost, central, diffusing source-culture.


You've missed something

Post 5

The Frood (Stop Torture: A455528)

Heh. I don't know how I forgot that. I'll add it now. (About African characteristics of the heads.)

It's supposed to be a University Project, but since it never really did work well I'm considering dropping it and sending it through the Peer Review.

Zapatecs? The Zapotecs?


You've missed something

Post 6

~ jwf ~ scribblo ergo sum

Not sure of the spelling ..I only heard the name on the show.
But hey, until I read your article, I thought Olmecs was 'Old Mex'.
Liked your article and suggest you submit it for review. You might want to correct the 'e' for 'a' spelling of the last 'serpant' in the text and the structure of 'how they look like' seems odd to me. All these are near the bottom where you corrected the Afro-omission.
Also, ...it really should be noted that several of these statues have their heads craned back to stare straight up into the sky. This is not an accident of their positioning, or that they have fallen over - they are carved with heads tilted back to watch the stars. This and the fact that the culture supposedly had only stone tools are what make the "Ol'Mex" sculptures so fascinating.
Perhaps in Peer Review, someone could help with pictures, illustrations or at least a link to some visuals, because 'seeing is believing' with this lot.


You've missed something

Post 7

~ jwf ~ scribblo ergo sum

PS: Where I said 'Aztec' in the longer posting above, I think I meant 'Mayan'. My problem is a reluctance to accept any abitrary labels applied by modern outsiders (look what happened to all the aboriginals of the America's being called 'Indians' because the interloping outsiders wanted to be going through India on their way to China). I used to think "Ol'Mex" was a least an honest description.


Key: Complain about this post

Write an Entry

"The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy is a wholly remarkable book. It has been compiled and recompiled many times and under many different editorships. It contains contributions from countless numbers of travellers and researchers."

Write an entry
Read more