(9aus of 11)
Most of the information in this message comes from, “They Came Before Columbus,” by Ivan Van Sertima, published 1976.Olmecs are Negro-Africans. Negro means original Africans, black in color and short statured, the so-called dwarf or pygmy. Whether by navigational skill or accident, Olmecs could have come from West Africa via the North Atlantic Equatorial ocean currents which would have deposited them in the Gulf of Mexico. Olmec culture had an Egyptian element. This suggests accessing the Atlantic by way of the Mediterranean.
The arrival of the Olmec culture in Middle America (Mesoamerica, Central America) is dated around 800 BCE. This is based on carbon dating of archaeological artifactual evidence unearthed thus far. All later civilizations in Mesoamerica, whether Mexican or Maya, rest ultimately on an Olmec base. This tells us one or two things. That the Mayans and Mexicans (also Aztec and Quiché) are Olmecs or that those who arrived before the Olmec became absorbed into the Olmec culture, thus intermarried to a high extent with the Olmec such that the natives and the new arrivals were likely indistinguishable, which was likely assisted by not being that different in the first place such that they became one and the same under different local names based on geography or families.The sacred center of Olmec culture was La Venta, about eighteen miles inland from the Gulf of Mexico. At this location stood four colossal Negroid stone heads, six to nine feet high, weighing up to forty tons each. See Map Of Olmec Heartland In Central America, pdf file, page 165.
Stone heads have also been found at San Lorenzo in Vera Cruz, and Tres Zapotes in southern Vera Cruz. Also found were massive stone sculptures in the medieval Mexico of the Mayas. Regarding medieval Mexico, I'm not sure if this is in the same location as current Mexico or the larger Mexico that included current Mexico or if there was a Mexico in the Yucatan area of the Mayas.Olmec culture at La Venta ran from 800 to 400 BCE. Common sense tells us that no group of people arrive in a place and immediately begin carving giant heads. No. More immediate things come first and that takes time. Furthermore, unless the Olmec were of the shorter African type, then we also know that they were not the first Africans in the Americas.
Migrations from Africa didn't just happen every once and a while. We have not even begun to discuss South America. But for now we'll add one evidence from San Salvador where "patently Egyptian statuettes" were found buried three meters deep. Another piece of evidence is based on Van Sertima's statement that the blacks of Nubia appeared as monumental revered figures in the Olmec culture of Mexico. This took place at the same time these Nubians began another period of rule in Egypt around 800 BCE. Thus, Olmec culture must have already existed prior to 800 BCE.
This is corroborated by Jairazbhoy in his book, “Old World Origins of American Civilization”. Jairazbhoy states that Olmec culture began 1200 BCE. This is 400 years before the dating of the colossal stone heads. Van Sertima agrees by essentially stating that although hard carbon datings of artifacts gives us an Olmec beginning of 800-700 BCE, the cultural complex known as Olmec has its beginnings in an earlier stratum of 1200-1100 BCE.
As far as the African presence in the Americas goes, we must remember that we are only talking about the Olmecs and only about Central America. The Olmecs were not the first to the Americas. We must look to all the coastlines of the Americas, something which is outside the scope of this message. However, 1200 BCE is sufficient to show that Africans were in the Americas and in North America at least 2,700 years before Cristobal Colon Christopher Columbus, Amerigo Vespucci and the rest of dem.
So the USA has accumulated 300 million people in 400 years. How many millions of people do you think accumlated in the Americas in 2700 years? A lot more than 300 million.
Van Sertima does acknowledge that the earliest types of people from Africa (Negroid) and from Australia (Australoid) may have trickled into the Americas from the Pacific.during the very ancient glacial epoch. I'm not sure why he doesn't include migrations from the Atlantic Ocean since the ocean currents have always done what they do by moving things from shore to shore.
Using a different angle of light we can say that an initial African migration to the Americas dated 1200 BCE or later, makes little sense, since this would have been during Egypt's and Africa's declining. No, the most migrations and initial migrations would have taken place at the height of civilization just as it does at the height of a bee hive or ant colony. Thus we must go back tens of thousands of years to find the first migrators to the Americas and to elsewhere outside Africa. Until we find that group and their arrival is said to be tens of thousands of years old, then we have not yet found the first arrivers or we have miscalculated their arrival.
Van Sertima further states that we should make allowance for the existence of a native civilization in the Gulf of Mexico area before the coming of the Olmec-Egyptian-Nubian-African-Negroes. This explains why the Olmec culture is an combination of Egyptian elements with native modifications rather than a wholesale replica of Egyptian civilization.
We now go back to a statement in paragraph 3 above where Michael Coe states: “All later civilizations in Mesoamerica, whether Mexican or Maya, rest ultimately on an Olmec base.” To me this is like saving civilization rests on a European base or an Asian base. The Olmecs were not the first in the Americas and the Olmecs were Egyptians, thus all attempts of humans trying to organize themselves under a set of behaviors, ultimately rests on an Inner Africa base. This is true no matter how debased those human groupings were or are. Even if we start from the Olmecs as a base, it is more accurate to say that all later civilizations that emanated in and from Middle America, rest on a blended African base, a blend involving layers of cultures covering tens of thousands of years.
Van Sertima also states that ”The Olmecs were a people formed from Mongoloid, Negroid and Mediterranean Caucasoids. This should not be mistaken to mean that the first Olmecs were of this tri-mixture already blended or the first arrivals were a ship full of this mixture.] As already discussed elsewhere. the first Caucasians were not pale skinned.
For my money's worth, I suspect the word “Olmec” is a form of Har-Makhu. Related words are Armagh, Macha. The Magh is a plain based on the level, balance, midway point of the equinox, the blessed feminine abode. Thus Makhu interchanges with Mat, the mid-way, the place of fulfillment. We can consider Central America as the midway of that land mass. In order for the name Olmec to match this meaning, the entire range of the Americas must have been known.
Makhu is Makha is Mecca, thus Har-Mecca is Ar-Mecca is Ar-Mec is Ol-Mec.
In a religious sense, Olmec is Almec is Lamec is Lamech is Lamekh. Lamekh begat Noah who began a new generation of people. And just like Eve's and Adam's children, Noah's children must have married natives, unless we prefer to accept the alternative.
Think about it. Adam and Eve were the first but yet somehow there were other people for their sons and daughters to marry. This is supposedly the beginning of humankind. Now fast forward to Noah's day and there's this 40 day inundation deluge flood and the only humans left were Noah and 7 others. Did each of Shem's children procreate with Shem's children or with Japheth's children? Which of them mixed with Ham's children, or was Ham's children excluded from the cousin incest and had to settle for sibling incest? The whole story of Noah's ark as a human event is a contradictory ol-mess.
