theory of Olmec civilisation's Chinese origin [Archive]

A.R.A.M.

08-31-2004, 08:32 PM

Probably not discovered, but were probably here LOONNGGG before modern textbooks currently acknowledge.

Krome, you make it seem like the theory of Shang influence on Olmec civilization is an open and shut case. It isn't. The linchpin of this theory is the similarity between the Olmec script and the Shang script. Unfortunately, the Sinorama article you cite, and which was cited in an earlier thread a couple of months ago, does not contain reproductions of the two scripts for us to make our own judgements.

Yet after viewing the two scripts at http://www.geocities.com/Tokyo/Bay/7051/contraolmec.html , I'm unconvinced that the Shang script was the progenitor of the Olmec script. Admittedly, Michael Xu's (or Chen's) cleaned up Olmec characters look uncannily similar to Shang characters, but they are, after all, cleaned up. The actual Olmec characters in the Olmec text bear only a faint resemblance to the Shang script. Indeed, they share more similarities with a script of African origin.

However, Olmec and Shang art seem to be very similar. Xu's site has some very thought-provoking photo comparisons: http://www.chinese.tcu.edu/www_chinese3_tcu_edu.htm .
Just beware: the Olmec script he includes in his pictorial comparison between Olmec script and Shang script is NOT the Olmec inscription itself. See the above link for that.

krome

08-31-2004, 08:59 PM

A.R.A.M.

08-31-2004, 11:53 PM

Um, even if they're "cleaned-up" (source?), the comparisons shown here (http://www.chinese.tcu.edu/www_chinese3_tcu_edu.htm) are really too damn similar to be just coincidental, IMO. Look at the characters for "Guan" and "Qiu," for example. They are virtually identical. I don't see how you can possibly deny that?* :confused:

Also, the connection does not rest upon a single ideographic "lynchpin" - but also many similarities in artwork and architecture across the board. The love of jade. And the particular statues I posted above are almost undeniably Asian in appearance. Extremely "slit-eyes" and straight bowl-cut hair? C'mon, man!* :rolleyes:

Temples on top of long, wide staircases?
http://www.crystalinks.com/aztecpyr.jpghttp://www.wahnam.com/QA/answers1999/qa1999images/aprp2b.jpg
I even speculate about food too. I don't know what the traditional Olmec diet was - but there are certainly many similarities between Chinese and modern Mexican food. Both rice-based, spicy, soft tacos/burritos/egg rolls, etc.

But perhaps most importantly is the people. Let's face it, Indios are pretty Asiatic-looking. The Sinorama article even refers to the Mongoloid birthmark many are born with. So, you have a genetic tracer here, as well.

No, this case isn't "open & shut," but there is some strong probability of a link here. That's all I'm saying.

* "We want the facts to fit the preconceptions. When they don't, it is easier to ignore the facts than to change the preconceptions." - Jessamyn West :confused

Krome, thanks for correcting my spelling. I didn't realize that this board was that anal-retentive, but it never hurts to have a Webster on discussion forums. Keep up the good work. Are you still spelling Rumsfeld Rum5fe1d?

Your original post made it seem like the Shang-Olmec connection had already been conclusively established. I posted an afrocentric rejection of the Shang theory of origins.

It is easy to deny that the Olmec script does not resemble the Shang script. My sources are my own eyes. I compared the characters on Xu's table and the characters in the Olmec inscription itself. Admittedly, when I first saw Xu's list of correspondences, I was convinced there was a connection. Indeed, "guan" was the one that made my jaw drop. But Xu's characters are not the characters in the original text. When I saw original Olmec text itself, referred to as a celt, I realized that Xu had NOT accurately represented the script. The Olmec "guan" in the text only vaguely resembles the Shang "guan." And it is connected to another character, a fact Xu's table hides. Xu has given the other characters a considerable scrubbing as well. Indeed, look at the first Olmec character Xu likens to "bu": the Olmec character in the original inscription is significantly more complex than the Shang character. I don't want to say that Xu is faking all this, but he is seeing what he wants to see. The take-home point is that the Olmec characters on Xu's website are not the same as the Olmec characters in the Olmec inscription.

And you are absolutely correct that the Olmec script is not the only purported correspondence. And I did not deny that either. In fact, I included a link that placed Shang art and Olmec art side by side to demonstrate the similarities.

But similarities can be just that, similarities. They do not necessarily imply influence. The Sinorama article states that the Olmecs venerated their ancestors, citing that as a reason we should see the Olmec civilization springing from Shang refugees. Well, I guess that means that the ancient Romans, who also had shrines to their ancestors, also got it from the Chinese.

But let's entertain some of your other theories, specifically architecture, food, and the blue birthmark. You're probably right about the pyramidal structure being Chinese; no other civilization in the world has erected pyramidal structures before. But then again, I wasn't aware that any ancient pyramids from Shang times had been discovered in China. Artistic reconstructions of Anyang structures seem to suppose that the builings were made of wood principally. Maybe the royal tombs had stone pyramids built on them, but archaeologists have yet to uncover them.

Mexican cooking resembles cooking from other regions of the world, not just China. But the resemblances may have begun much later than you think. I have a Mexican cookbook, which unfortunately I can't refer to right now because it is in a different state, that claims that Mexican cooking shares similarities with certain Southeast Asian cuisines. I don't know either way, but the author states that this resemblance is a result of Spanish imperialism. Spain had colonial possessions in Southeast Asia; Spanish adventurers roamed far and wide in insular and peninsular Southeast Asia. Moreover, Mexico was linked to Southeast Asia via the galleon (did I spell this right, Krome?) trade. Why couldn't rice have been transplanted to Mexico then? And chilis and peanuts (and other items, such as tobacco and sweet potatoes) are indigenous to Mexico and Central and South America. These items certainly made their way to Asia from the Americas.

As for the blue birthmark, the Sinorama article mentions that Native Americans' ancestors originally crossed the Barings Strait from Asia into North America. And I do not believe Sinorama, scholarly journal that it is, is the only journal to make that claim. So such a genetic marker is not necessarily the result of Shang blood being introduced during Olmec times.

But I think you're right about the bowl cut. That is incontrovertible evidence that the Shang influenced Olmec civilization. In fact, I can't think of a single portrait of any Chinese ruler or poet that doesn't depict the person in anything but a bowl haircut. Well done for uncovering that link between the Shang and the Olmec.

krome

09-01-2004, 06:51 AM

When I saw original Olmec text itself, referred to as a celt, I realized that Xu had NOT accurately represented the script. The Olmec "guan" in the text only vaguely resembles the Shang "guan."
http://www.chinese.tcu.edu/image007.jpg
What are you talking about? The "guan" on Celt #4 here? It looks exactly like he transcribed it. Same with "qiu." That's a pretty convincing linguistic link, that one would have to be biased and blind to deny. I mean, for the Olmecs to use written ideograms - that match the developing Chinese script from across the world in the same time era - is really pretty remarkable. It's pretty damning evidence alone.

"Xi" even sounds similar to "Shang" or even the preceding Xia (http://www.fortunecity.com/tatooine/acegarp/898/10000bc601.htm) Dynasty.
But similarities can be just that, similarities. They do not necessarily imply influence.
Yes, but when you have a mass of similarities they have a multiplied effect when taken as a whole.
I wasn't aware that any ancient pyramids from Shang times had been discovered in China. Artistic reconstructions of Anyang structures seem to suppose that the builings were made of wood principally. Maybe the royal tombs had stone pyramids built on them, but archaeologists have yet to uncover them.
http://www.100megsfree4.com/farshores/chipyr_2.jpghttp://www.crystalinks.com/tibetpyr.gif
These are Chinese earth-mound pyramids. Various ones estimated to be 2000-5000 years old. That could certainly put some of them within the Xia or Shang Dynasty timeframe. And, construction material could differ due to local available materials. Also, anything made of wood in the wet Latin American jungles there would have quickly rotted within a few decades. So, although about the only things archaeologists find now are made of stone - that doesn't necessarily mean that's all they built. Northern China is far drier and thus organic materials could survive far longer. You have to take all that into consideration - but I don't think you did.
But I think you're right about the bowl cut. That is incontrovertible evidence that the Shang influenced Olmec civilization. In fact, I can't think of a single portrait of any Chinese ruler or poet that doesn't depict the person in anything but a bowl haircut. Well done for uncovering that link between the Shang and the Olmec.
You know, your overly-sarcastic/skeptical denial of the obvious fact that this statue is basically undeniably Asiatic - East Asian even - reveals some underlying agenda behind refuting this theory. I honestly don't know any other race that such straight hair and "chingy" eyes could represent a relative norm for. I know many East Asian guys today who are dead ringers for that sculpture, in fact.
http://www.crystalinks.com/olmecman4.jpg
Clearly, you're not being objective at all, but have your mind already completely shut to it for some reason. Well, sorry, but sarcastically taking something to a extreme in order to debunk it simply doesn't obscure the more evident reality here. Is that all you got? :rolleyes:

Overall, your diehard resistance to ALL of these varioius parallels puzzles me. Perhaps it is simply more important to you to prove me wrong that to seriously consider any strong correlations here? So, whatever. You can be the last one on Earth to believe any of this, for all I care. I've provided more than enough evidence to back up my claims. But, I can't make the blind see.

And I wasn't correcting your spelling with "lynchpin" either, btw. Oversensitive, are we? :rolleyes:

SunWuKong

09-01-2004, 07:43 AM

You're probably right about the pyramidal structure being Chinese; no other civilization in the world has erected pyramidal structures before.

are you being sarcastic?

The Sinorama article even refers to the Mongoloid birthmark many are born with. So, you have a genetic tracer here, as well.

how do we know that the Shang people were born with the same Mongoloid birthmark? to the best of my knowledge, most modern Chinese people are not born with that birthmark.

tint

09-01-2004, 08:02 AM

krome

09-01-2004, 08:18 AM

I don't see the link between civilizations by pyramid structures. People like the Artec, Mayans, AmerIndians and descendants, their ancestors crossed the land bridge like the Native Americans.

It's called Mongolian Spots, not Mongoloid birthmarks. The origin of the term for this is unclear, but Asians have the highest frequency, blacks second, and whites least. Realize that in recent history half of Europeans were wiped out by the Black Death. The mutation goes back further, maybe before the journey out of Africa.
Well, the pyramidal link is pretty hazy to me too. But again, it's all the evidence taken collectively as a whole, though. This table has many legs - it's not just resting on one "lynchpin."

The strongest links I see right now are linguistically, artwise and phenotypically. The last as expressed thru their artwork and fractional descendants living today. I mean, it's really straining believability to say those ideograms and faces don't show a strikingly high resemblance to same-era Shang script and East Asian appearances.

I mean, am I missing some thing here? Cuz A.R.A.M. claimed that Xu had miscribed the Olmec characters - but they looked exactly the same to me? :confused: And he dismissed my joke about the "bowl cut" as being cross-cultural. Well, yes - but that was more a JOKE said tongue-in-cheek.

Maybe the sculpting was just crude - but to state the obvious - the statue has a relatively flat face, "slitty" monolid eyes with no deep eye sockets and straight hair. In combination, these are all East Asian phenotypical hallmarks. Not exclusively - but most commonly found together in East Asians - if not almost uniquely. So, I think A.R.A.M. is being over-skeptical at best, disingenuous in denial at worst, here.

SunWuKong

09-01-2004, 10:05 AM

the one thing that seems to be missing in Mike Xu's theory is that while the Olmec had a system of writing, there has been no evidence that they wrote on oracle bones like the Shang people did. bones are readily available so a change in environment should not stop the Shang people from continuing to write on them, had they actually crossed the Pacific and started the Olmec civilisation. i think that would be an extremely strong evidence.

krome

09-01-2004, 10:41 AM

^ Again, maybe there were, but just haven't been found yet? It's hard to prove something DOESN'T exist in archaeology - cuz...maybe you just haven't found it yet or it was destroyed.

Again, Latin America is a very hot, wet climate. Bone is organic. Similar to wood, it probably wouldn't last a few thousand years out exposed in the jungle. I mean, how many turtle shells WITHOUT writing do you find? Answer: pretty much none, either. Millions of turtles and other animals die in the jungle every year - but their remains quickly decompose - including bone.

Ancient cultures didn't simply make everything out of stone - that's just the only artifacts/structures that were typically durable enough to survive and get discovered. But even if something does survive - you still have to find it. And a turtle shell fragment under thousands of years of sediment? We're talking needle in a haystack here.

Again, look at this statue's eyes. Far from socketed - they are actually protruding. I mean, the sculptor actually went to the extra trouble to portray that. I just don't know that I can say I've seen non-Asiatic people with this facial/eye structure. :confused:
http://www.crystalinks.com/olmechead2.jpg

A.R.A.M.

09-01-2004, 11:07 AM

Krome,

I'm glad you found a photograph of the original inscription. I was working from a drawing--not a photograph--from a book or article posted on another site ( http://www.geocities.com/Tokyo/Bay/...ontraolmec.html ) that presented the Olmec characters as significantly more complicated than those on Xu's table of correspondences. In the photo, the first Olmec character looks exactly like "bu"; the so-called "guan" looks like the top part is part of another Olmec character. And the bottom element of the Olmec "guan" is just a blob. But maybe it was hard to chisel it into stone. As for the drawing from the book included on the website cited above, maybe the authors of this book were the ones taking artistic license, or maybe it is a conspiracy. Or maybe they were able to study the celt more closely and saw some additional markings that are too faint to show up in the photograph. The photograph doesn't allows us to see all the characters clearly.

A sincere thank you for the photos of the earthen pyramids in China. I was unaware of their existence. And I was being sarcastic about not knowing if any other ancient civilization was capable of building pyramids. I don't remember, but did the Sinorama article or Xu's website say that the Olmecs had pyramids? The picture you included in one of your earlier posts is an artistic rendition of the Aztec pyramids. Do you know of any pyramids from Olmec times? If so, please post a source, as this topic is growing on me. I do you like your wood explanation. If the Olmecs built pyramids out of anything other than stone, it makes sense that these early structures would have rotted away. Too bad we may never know either way.

As for multitudes of similarities being increasingly convincing, I agree with you. However, some of your points, like Mexican cooking and bowl cuts--not just facial features, but hairstyles--seemed easily explained away by other theories. I gave you my theory of why foods from one area could be found in another, and I wanted to make the point that the bowl cut is not a timeless hairstyle like you seem to imply. I knew you were being sarcastic about the bowl cut, and my reply was meant to match your sarcasm.

Maybe I am being unreasonable, but I originally felt like you were presenting this theory like it was ironclad fact. My agenda is simply to point out that this theory isn't absolutely persuasive, that there are other plausible explanations for the similarities. I could be convinced of Shang's influence on the Olmec civilization, but I need more than bowl cuts, Mexican food, and earth mounds. I will say again for a third time, however, I think the artwork in form is shockingly similar to Shang art. As for phenotypical hallmarks, what can I say? Some people maintain that Native Americans were originally migrants from Asia. The Sinorama article mentions that too, I believe. In fact, I remember there being a blurb in the Sinoram article about an Amerindian fair where the Native American ticket vendor mistook Xu for being a Native American and waved him in for free. Maybe that was just fanciful. But there are other alternative theories to explain phenotypical similarities. I'm not saying your wrong Krome, I'm just saying that there are other theories.

The Olmec script is the "lynchpin," Kr0m3, and while I see similarities, I don't see sameness. With the photograph you provided, I'd say the Shang theory looks more and more persuasive, but I can't help but suspect that people who have seen it up close were able to detect other, more faint, markings not easily seen in that photograph. That is why they included a drawing of a significantly more complex Olmec script in their book--and I will try and hunt the name down so you can read it if you like. But yeah, I could be wrong; I'm not saying that I'm absolutely correct. At any rate, the Olmec script has been deciphered as far as I know, so it would be interesting to compare Olmec scholars' translations of Celt #4 with Xu's. If they match, hey we got ourselves some more evidence of influence; if not, then what can we say?

To say that I am being overly-skeptical or diseingenous because I see other points of view is wrong in my opinion. There ARE other plausible theories about the Olmec script in particular, and Olmec civilization in general; Xu's theory is not the only one.

SunWuKong

09-01-2004, 11:10 AM

this thread was split from this (http://forums.yellowworld.org/showthread.php?t=17706).

krome

09-01-2004, 11:16 AM

SunWuKong

09-01-2004, 12:10 PM

krome

09-01-2004, 12:42 PM

^ Agreed. There is a lot of tantalizing evidence so far, but research has really only just begun on this whole possibility. Frankly, I think that's the problem. In my trips alone to China, I noticed many potential cross-cultural links* that probably not many serious researchers have explored because of the cultural/geographical/mental divide. People aren't even looking there.

* Like, there are a lot of links between the Yi Zhu of SW China and Japanese (linguistically, tea ceremonies, tiny stools and sitting on floor, etc).

And, the Naxi in Yunnan had feathered costumes and painted woodwork resembling that of Pacific NW Indians.
http://www.strike9.com/voyd/travel/05naxiart-.jpg
Phenotypically, they even looked more distinctly like some "Amerindians."
http://www.strike9.com/voyd/travel/05naxilj-.jpg
And, they also have their own unique pictographic script. Now, has anyone compared this with any Native American scripts, I wonder?

And Mai-S-L had posted this from another site:
and yes there are definitely uncanny resemblances to asians and american indians. i see that the tibetans and the navajos dress alike even down to their jewelry. some native people say that if you go to the other side of the land of the hopi, you'll come out in Tibet. cool, huh? oh and the hopi and tibetan sign for moon and sun is the same, but opposite. so the tibetan moon sign is the hopi sun sign, and so on.

and i also found out that the cantonese word for "ok" is the same in Cherokee(Tsalagi), it is "ho wa". cool! i think more than any other native people the Inuits of Alaska and Canada and the Navajo, look straight up East Asian in a lot of cases. guess this is why some of my relatives intermarried with Koreans, Chinese, and Japanese. just friggin' cool!

Now, some differences would be expected when you have a few explorers travelling afar. Obviously, much of the homeland culture would be lost and new parts added. Just like the US vs old Europe. Or Asian-Americans vs Asia. How much original culture or language is really retained after a few generations? The less immigrants you have, the less culture will be retained. Also, you must adapt to your new surroundings, as well. Considering only a small group of Chinese must have come and presumably interbred INTO and with the existing locals - it's quite amazing if they were able to exert so much influence at all - or even found a new unique "dynasty." There's no way it could be a carbon-copy - but the amount of apparent influence is actually pretty impressive already.

A.R.A.M.

09-01-2004, 01:09 PM

^^ Nice post, A.R.A.M. I think we're getting to the same page here. I didn't realize you had been researching this already - so please update us on whatever else you find.

No, I don't know of Olmec pyramids offhand - I mean, I've only lightly researched the "Chinese connection" here - not Olmecs as a whole.

BTW, I got the photo of the celt from one of the links (http://www.chinese.tcu.edu/www_chinese3_tcu_edu.htm) YOU provided - so really, you found it, not me. :biggrin: Which is a pretty good photo, btw - so I'm not sure why the book would have made the characters much more complex? They seem pretty darn clear on the pic to me?

PS - this linky no worky: http://www.geocities.com/Tokyo/Bay/...ontraolmec.html - did you mean http://www.geocities.com/Tokyo/Bay/7051/contraolmec.html?

Yes, the second link is the correct link to the afrocentric theory and the "alternative" renditions of celt #4. Did you see their version of celt #4? If they're wrong, I suspect it's because they mistook some veins or cracks in the surface of the rock as parts of the inscription itself.

Another, more detailed page expousing the Manding script's influence on the Olmec script can be found here: http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Academy/8919/decip1.html .
It was a paper presented at some Anthropological conference in 1997. I have yet to read it, but they appear to have used the exact same rendition of the Olmec script as the link cited above. Moreover, they have included a translation of celt #4, as well as other Olmec texts. Keyword searches for "Shang" and "Chinese" returned no hits, so either the authors were regrettably unconcerned with engaging other theories; they did not know of Xu's theories yet; or they knew of them, which came out in '96 I believe, but they did not have time to change their paper.

I really want to see the celt that supposedly reads "The king and his chiefs establish the state." I don't know for sure, but that seems to have an authentic ring to it. If someone can make sense of celt #4, I wish they would post a translation in light of Xu's correspondences. My uneducated translation makes little sense, but then again, I'm no expert on the Shang dynasty.

krome

09-01-2004, 01:28 PM

Ha, their version of Celt #4 looks like a bad napkin sketch:
http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Academy/8919/olfig5a.gif
Clearly, the actual photo is faarr more reliable that THAT! :biggrin: I mean, they turned the "guan" symbol into a damn peanut! Um, I think they took a little too much creative license there...

Thanks - it's a huge site, I don't have time to read it all now. Now, the same Afrocentrists claim that there were Dravidian and Manding-speaking Black Shang. Hence, that would form a Black-Chinese-Olmec triangle, lol. That's a bit more far-fetched to me - for various reasons - but I have not done much research to hold any real opinion on it for now.

A few quick observations though:

They theorize that Mayan pyramids like the one below were derived from earlier Olmec pyramids:
http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Academy/8919/Image16.gif
This mask is a DEAD-RINGER for my dad (in his youth):
http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Academy/8919/Image24.gif
I think I will actually send him that! :biggrin:

PS - If the "Mongoloid spot" could be due to Native American proto-Asian ancestry (not "Chinese") - I wonder if it is as common amongst other Native American tribes distant from the Olmecs? Or, is there just an unusually high prevalence amongst Olmec descendants?

A.R.A.M.

09-01-2004, 07:28 PM

Krome,

You are absolutely right about the quality of their reproduction. It sucks. But in their defense, most of the copied pictures in the readers from my undergraduate days were shitty too. And theirs appears to be a copy of a copy of an artistic rendition of the original inscription. It does include more detail than the photograph, and if those details are accurate, then we should follow their version. If they are not, and there is some reason to suspect that they aren’t, then the Manding origin of the Olmec script should be dropped. Personally, I would like to see other pictures of the celt, just so I can be certain if there are faint markings on the celt that can’t be seen in Xu’s picture.

While I have only skimmed through the article, it seems the author's argument for the Afrocentric origins of Olmec civilization is not a new one: it stretches back to the early 1920’s, over thirty years before the La Verta celts were discovered. The historical trajectory of this argument seems to be: the Mayan scripts were determined to be similar to the Manding script of Africa; the Mayan’s got their script from the Olmec civilization. Thus, according to these scholars, the Olmec script must have come from Africa. If the additional markings on these scholars’ reproductions of celt #4 are not accurate, it could be they felt pressured to make the script on the newly discovered celts conform to their understanding of the origin of Olmec script. Or, in a different vein, maybe none of these scholars had been trained in classical Chinese scripts, so they had no idea what to look for. But then again, there is always some young scholar hungry to make a name for him or herself by overturning scholarly orthodoxy. Maybe it took forty years for one to show up.

The literature review provided by the authors reinforces the claim that a new group of people arrived in Mexico around 1200 b.c.e. In accordance with their understanding of the origins of the Mayan script, earlier scholars speculated that this group traveled from Africa. And, of course, Xu while adhering to the claim that immigrants arrived in 1200, breaks ranks with earlier scholars by positing that these newcomers came from China. However, the article makes one very important point in favor of Afrocentric scholars: Olmec civilization began along the Gulf of Mexico and later spread out to Pacific. La Venta, the place where the celts were discovered, is in Veracruz, along the Gulf of Mexico. This could be a problem for Xu’s thesis, as I think he maintains that ocean currents took the Shang refugees from China, around Japan, and to the Pacific coast.

I don't know if these are the same Afrocentric scholars who make claims about a Black Shang. Unfortunately I've never heard of these theories before, so I am less equipped to deal with them than you are. But the ideas these particular Afrocentric scholars are talking about are less farfetched than some other ideas I've heard regarding American and Egyptian similarities.

kuilong

09-01-2004, 08:01 PM

and i also found out that the cantonese word for "ok" is the same in Cherokee(Tsalagi), it is "ho wa". cool! i think more than any other native people the Inuits of Alaska and Canada and the Navajo, look straight up East Asian in a lot of cases. guess this is why some of my relatives intermarried with Koreans, Chinese, and Japanese. just friggin' cool!

Um, yay. And "one" in certain dialects of Tamil is also "one" [wʌn]. And "dog" in the obscure aborignal language of Mbaram, spoken by about two people in Queensland at last check, also happens to be "dog" [dɒg]. It's actually possible to post long wordlists of close correspondences of totally unrelated languages; make two random languages within certain parameters, and they'll be amazingly similar in ways. (Amazing because humans have horrible statistical intuition)

Seriously, these similarities would probably have received considerable scholarly attention before now if there had been something to them.

asvenus

09-02-2004, 07:17 AM

this thread is really interesting...i havent really ever done any research into this field but its pretty obvious that most of these early civilisations (African and Asian) would have founded others in various parts of the world...we werent static before Europenas came and did travel and trade and interact with other parts of the world so it makes sense....

krome

09-06-2004, 08:05 PM

A.R.A.M.

09-07-2004, 01:29 AM

A few more interesting possible links:

My rents used to live in Peru. They said it's been speculated that the Incas may have also had Chinese ancestry - b/c they have "chingy" eyes. And, many of the Incan town names can be transliterated into Chinese.

A few (spelling?):

Hulin: Hu = lake, Lin = mountain or forest
DaHuangTiShuoYou: Da Huang Ti = Emperor, Shuo You = everything

Krome,

I'm a little confused here. Are you speculating that the Shang refugees were the ancestors of the Incas? If that is the case, I hate to rain on your parade, but I believe the pronunciation of Chinese has changed dramatically over the millenia. Pronunciation in the Shang was likely much different from what it is today.

BeTheReds

09-07-2004, 01:49 AM

Did the shang keep historical documents? If so, wouldn't there be some mention of their central American colonies?

krome

09-07-2004, 06:02 AM

A.R.A.M. - No, it's a separate link altogether as far as I know. Do note that the founding of the Inca dynasty took place before the 12th century (http://staff.esuhsd.org/~balochie/studentprojects/incas/) as a small ethnic group. So, with that later starting date, Chinese pronounciation would have been far closer to modern-day speech. Interestingly, their language was called "quehua" (http://www.wsu.edu/~dee/CIVAMRCA/INCAS.HTM). Well, I do recognize "hua" as "language" in Mandarin right off the bat! :eek:

My mother also said the Incan women highly resembled the Miao zhu - with big head wraps and brightly-patterned layered dress. Compare for yourself:
http://www.inkas.com/tours/jpg_files/jpg_photos/cuzco_machu_picchu/varayoc.jpghttp://jp.fujitsu.com/train/backnumber/images/forum/07/China.miao_2.jpg
I believe there are various historical Chinese accounts of ship and boat passages - maybe even to Central America? I'm pretty fuzzy on all this, though. I don't know about Shang Dynasty records - it's so old and writing was still primitive back then. In fact, haven't they really only found a few tortoise shell writings from that era? I dunno...

Incans were big into masonry.
http://www.bergen.org/AAST/Projects/Engineering_Graphics/_EG2001/pedi_corporation/america.jpg
As so were the Chinese of that time as well. Note the Great Wall was built over several dynasties from ~200s BC to 1644 AD. However, I don't think they achieved anything like the sophisticatied mortarless precision stone-cutting/fitting that the Incas did.
http://www.central.k12.ca.us/akers/wall3.gif
Well, I've honestly not researched Incas much, so just throwin' stuff out there right now...
http://www.inkas.com/tours/jpg_files/jpg_photos/lima/sican_mask.jpg<-- Asiatic eyes?

Maybe it's no coincidence the Peruvians had elected a Japanese president (Fujimori)? There may have been an ancient common ancestral spirit there...? :confused:

A.R.A.M.

09-07-2004, 03:35 PM

Krome's right, extant Shang documents are principally tortoise shell writings. There may be some bronze inscriptions, but I don't know for sure. That seems more like a Western Zhou kinda thing. But even then, these Shang settlers would have been fleeing the Zhou conquest of Shang, so the Shang would have ceased to exist at that point.

I understand your hypothesis now Krome. I thought since you said the Incans may have had Chinese ancestry that you were referring to the Shang settlers being their progenitors. Chinese contacts with Peru are well documented in the nineteenth century; it is possible that they go back much further. Unfortunately, I don't really know either way.

Some things for us to consider: Wall building in China really took off in the Ming dynasty. At least what we think of when we think of the great wall of China began in Ming. I don't know which period Incans started building their fortifications, but there is some overlap between the Ming dynasty and the Incan empire. And indeed, fortifications other than walls were being built in China long before the Great Wall was built. But as other regions of the world developed architecture independently of the Chinese, it is conceivable that the Incans did as well. Also, the Incans are famous for their aquaducts as well. Were aquaducts built in China? I know that river managament was a vital concern of government, but I don't know anything about aquaducts in China.

Also, the Incans didn't have a system of writing. I think that is odd if they were in fact descendants of the Chinese. Unless, of course, they were descendants of illiterate Chinese. Or maybe the Miaozu connection may come into play here. A trope in early Chinese writings on the Southern peoples is the use of knots as memnomics in lieu of writing. I always thought it was a literary device used to show how primitive non-Han peoples were, but maybe there is something to it.

But ultimately, if this is a Chinese connection, why are they dressed in flashy costumes like the Miao and using putative Miao record-keeping methods?

BeTheReds

09-07-2004, 05:15 PM

krome

09-07-2004, 06:44 PM

Also, the Incans didn't have a system of writing. I think that is odd if they were in fact descendants of the Chinese. Unless, of course, they were descendants of illiterate Chinese. Or maybe the Miaozu connection may come into play here. A trope in early Chinese writings on the Southern peoples is the use of knots as memnomics in lieu of writing. I always thought it was a literary device used to show how primitive non-Han peoples were, but maybe there is something to it.

But ultimately, if this is a Chinese connection, why are they dressed in flashy costumes like the Miao and using putative Miao record-keeping methods?
Hmm, VERY interesting...I didn't know Miao or Southern minorities used knots also. Well, Miao are Chinese, hence I call it the Chinese connection. When I say "Chinese," of course I am including the whole Chinese region.

Yea, the masonry aspect is far more tenuous. The embroidered/weaved fabrics, possible linguistic links and phenotype seem to be the main possible connections, so far...

BeTheReds - Did you even read my links?
Kuroshio current, a northern equatorial current which flows west to east along the east coasts of Taiwan and Japan. If boats followed this current, might they not indeed have been able to cross the ocean? (http://www.taiwaninfo.org/info/sinorama/en/8605/605006e4.html)
http://www.chinese.tcu.edu/%5Bacquired%5D%20(5).jpg
These may have been fisherman swept away in these cross-Pacific currents. In fact, my officemate was telling me how there are still descendants of JAPANESE fisherman living on islands off the western coast of South America today - but from "thousands" of years ago! Frankly, I think a lot of Melanesia and South America was populated by small micro-migration waves or bands of boats. Perhaps some where intentional explorers - but perhaps many were simply merchants or fisherman inadvertantly caught up in these currents. And once they arrived, there was "no way" back. So, they started anew in the new land...bringing what culture they had, adapting to the rest.

A.R.A.M.

09-07-2004, 07:43 PM

It only seems farfetched to me because a people with that kind of naval capabilities surely would have been able to defend themselves, and furthermore could have chosen to flee to somewhere a lot closer than central America. I mean come on, it would have taken months to sail to central America, and AGAINST the natural current of the ocean (unless you are suggesting that they sailed towards Alaska first.

Furthermore the Aztec and Olmec staple was corn, not rice.

It's a very interesting hypothesis, but there are too many holes.

On the Shang settlers, Krome's point of view and mine are very different. Here, I was merely agreeing with Krome's description of Shang documents as being limited to tortoise shell inscriptions. And I added that the Shang would not have kept records on their American "colonies" because these refugees, if they did in fact settle in the Americas, fled on the very twighlight of the kingdom, just as the Zhou and their allies were overthrowing the Shang king. So there would have been no Shang to keep records of its overseas territories. But in the end, the Shang theory of Olmec orgins holds that the settlers were Shang refugees fleeing the Zhou, not Shang colonists still tied to the Shang metropole.

BeTheReds

09-07-2004, 08:04 PM

BeTheReds - Did you even read my links?
Kuroshio current, a northern equatorial current which flows west to east along the east coasts of Taiwan and Japan. If boats followed this current, might they not indeed have been able to cross the ocean? (http://www.taiwaninfo.org/info/sinorama/en/8605/605006e4.html)
http://www.chinese.tcu.edu/%5Bacquired%5D%20(5).jpg

Look at that picture, the current they describe, the kuroshio current, would land them in the northwestern USA, not in central America.

krome

09-07-2004, 08:18 PM

Look at that picture, the current they describe, the kuroshio current, would land them in the northwestern USA, not in central America.
Well, and all the way down the coast of Mexico. And once along the coast, obviously it'd be easy to sail "cross-current" down even further. Yes, it's not like a sailboat can only drift with the currents. All it takes is a tiny bit of wind and you can go in any damn direction you want! HELLO!!!!

BeTheReds

09-07-2004, 08:34 PM

Well, and all the way down the coast of Mexico. And once along the coast, obviously it'd be easy to sail "cross-current" down even further. Yes, it's not like a sailboat can only drift with the currents. All it takes is a tiny bit of wind and you can go in any damn direction you want! HELLO!!!!

Okay, so you're lost in a current, you haven't seen dry land in months. why would you pass on all that vast expanse of seemingly endless coast, in more wet and fertile regions (like the pacific northwest, the sanfrancisco bay and the sacramento valley) idly sailing along the coast like you know that there's something better? That makes no sense. Furthermore to sail against the wind you have to zig zag into it and actively try to go against it.

The only way it makes sense is if they were looking for an advanced civilzation, didn't find one in north America but continued southward until they found the Olmecs, then integrated with them.

Which would mean that the 1000 or so (and that's pushing it) refugees who managed to survive the months long trip across the pacific with little or no food supplies intermingled with the native Olmec population numbering in the 100,000s YET, even then the Olmecs never learned and shipbuilding or long distance sailing techniques from them, even though they managed to sail across the pacific, hit land several times in North America, and sail against current AND wind to get there...

And don't speak condescending like to me with that "HELLO!!! " attitude. If you are trying to convince people of a scholarly theory, you have to present your argument and foster an intelligent discussion about it without insulting those who think they see holes in your argument.

Maybe it's no coincidence the Peruvians had elected a Japanese president (Fujimori)? There may have been an ancient common ancestral spirit there...? :confused:

He didn't seem to be too popular after the election. Why did he run away to Japan when his people took the Japanese embassy hostage while he was visiting it? Why wasn't the "common ancestral spirit" stopping them?

Furthermore I thought that you were trying to prove that the connection was with Chinese, not Japanese.

krome

09-07-2004, 08:47 PM

^ Dude, they rode the oceanic current to America. Then tacked down the coastline by wind. There's a myriad of possible reasons why. I don't understand why this is so "inconceivable" to you. Your questions are full of assumptions and poor logic - no offense.

And, let's not act like Chinese and Japanese are totally different species. To a modern-day Peruvian - they're all Asian. And, Japanese are probably majority Chinese-blood from several migration waves, anyways.

BeTheReds

09-07-2004, 09:19 PM

To a modern-day Peruvian - they're all Asian.

I thoght u used Fujimori to point out that Peruvians share a racial similarity with Asians. Wouldn't they then see themselves as Asians too? You're now contradicting yourself.

And, Japanese are probably majority Chinese-blood from several migration waves, anyways.

There is much much more evidence to suggest that most of the genetic stock of modern Japanese comes directly from the Korean peninsula with subtle mixing with polynesian, ainu, and southern chinese as years progressed. Scientists and archeologists and whoever else still can't prove without a shadow of a doubt that Yamato Japan and the imperial family were Korean in origin despite loads and loads of archaeological evidence on both the Japanese isles and the Korean peninsula and you Krome, looked a a bunch of slanty eyed statues and some marks chiseled on bones, and somehow that's indeniable proof that all of the Olmec civilization is chinese in origin.

I'm willing to accept that it is slightly possible that a few Chinese in ancient times made their way to central America either by accident or due to circumstance or both. I'm even willing to accept that the few who went there had a significant impact on the people they interacted with. But the evidence just isn't there to suggest that one of the civilizations is derived from the other.

And your strongest point out of all of the points (the way you present them) is artwork depicting an asiatic face, yet it is commonly accepted that the most likely reason for Native Americans' racial similarity to Asians is because their ancestors traveled across the land bridge that was present at the bearing straight. Naturally the descendants of such people.. (The OLMECS perhaps?) would have Asiatic features.

You accuse me of having faulty logic, but Krome, isn't it possible that you're looking at this with a personal bias and wish to glorify the Ancient Chinese civilzations? Not that they don't deserve glory, but I'd rather honor them and respect them for things that they have actually done rather than things that maybe they might have possibly done.

You say I'm making too many assumptions but look at your assumptions: It is slightly possible that maybe they might have accidently sailed across the pacific, passing up North America to settle in Central America where they maybe possibly might have built huge temples and monuments but forgot how to sail despite advanced sailing techniques like going against currents and winds. Oh, but the statues had slanty eyes, and chinese people have slanty eyes. Irrefutable proof!

krome

09-07-2004, 10:41 PM

I thoght u used Fujimori to point out that Peruvians share a racial similarity with Asians. Wouldn't they then see themselves as Asians too? You're now contradicting yourself.
Maybe not consciously - as this research is new. But maybe subconsciously they feel an affinity. This was also an experience related by some Native American GIs in the Korean War - who were struck by how similar-looking many of the Korean soldiers were to themselves - and made them question what they were doing there to some degree.
There is much much more evidence to suggest that most of the genetic stock of modern Japanese comes directly from the Korean peninsula with subtle mixing with polynesian, ainu, and southern chinese as years progressed. Scientists and archeologists and whoever else still can't prove without a shadow of a doubt that Yamato Japan and the imperial family were Korean in origin despite loads and loads of archaeological evidence on both the Japanese isles and the Korean peninsula and you Krome, looked a a bunch of slanty eyed statues and some marks chiseled on bones, and somehow that's indeniable proof that all of the Olmec civilization is chinese in origin.
Dude, they've "proved" the GENERAL origins of the Japanese, like you said. That is all I'm trying to "prove" with the existing evidence here - GENERAL ORIGINS - not which royal Incan family was from what country, for god's sakes.
And your strongest point out of all of the points (the way you present them) is artwork depicting an asiatic face, yet it is commonly accepted that the most likely reason for Native Americans' racial similarity to Asians is because their ancestors traveled across the land bridge that was present at the bearing straight. Naturally the descendants of such people.. (The OLMECS perhaps?) would have Asiatic features.[/url]
Funny how you conveniently ignore the linguistic matches, jade usage, embroidered clothing, etc etc...
[QUOTE=BeTheReds]You accuse me of having faulty logic, but Krome, isn't it possible that you're looking at this with a personal bias and wish to glorify the Ancient Chinese civilzations? Not that they don't deserve glory, but I'd rather honor them and respect them for things that they have actually done rather than things that maybe they might have possibly done.
It's possible that I'm open-minded enough to explore mounting evidence. I mean, many have suspected Asian-Indio links for decades now. It's just that recently, a few have actually been giving it some real research. Maybe you're not the progressive type to challenge and update the status-quo. I am.

Healthy skepticism is welcome, but irrational denial is suspect. Anyways, let's try to keep this an intellectual debate vs an ego-battle. Thx.

BeTheReds

09-07-2004, 11:40 PM

Maybe not consciously - as this research is new. But maybe subconsciously they feel an affinity. This was also an experience related by some Native American GIs in the Korean War - who were struck by how similar-looking many of the Korean soldiers were to themselves - and made them question what they were doing there to some degree.

The similarity comes from the possible hundreds of thousands of Asians crossing the FRICKIN LAND BRIDGE OVER THE BERING STRAIGHT! NOT FROM CHINESE REFUGEES OR COLONISTS IN MEXICO!

Dude, they've "proved" the GENERAL origins of the Japanese, like you said.

Like I said... yet you said the Japanese were mostly Chinese. That's obviously wrong if you're gonna say that what I said was basically true.

That is all I'm trying to "prove" with the existing evidence here - GENERAL ORIGINS - not which royal Incan family was from what country, for god's sakes.

What do incan kings have to do with the Olmecs maybe having chinese origins? Anyway the GENERAL ORIGINS of the Olmecs based on lots of evidence are that they are the descendents of people who crossed the land bridge, hence the Asian features.

It's possible that I'm open-minded enough to explore mounting evidence. I mean, many have suspected Asian-Indio links for decades now. It's just that recently, a few have actually been giving it some real research. Maybe you're not the progressive type to challenge and update the status-quo. I am.

Healthy skepticism is welcome, but irrational denial is suspect. Anyways, let's try to keep this an intellectual debate vs an ego-battle. Thx.

I'm all for challenging the status quo, but if all you can come up with are slanty eyed statues and temples built by the respective peoples thousands of years after the supposed split was supposed to have taken place, then I'm simply not convinced. The case you make through the characters and the artwork is compelling, but it's simply not enough.

krome

09-08-2004, 06:30 AM

^ The Americas was likely populated by repeated migration waves over the land bridge AND from seamen across the ocean.
----------
Recent archeological evidence studies seems to suggest that the first Americans came from Australia and not Siberia as has been widely believed. (http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/articleshow/843564.cms)

Analysis of 12000-year-old human skeletons in the deserts of Baja peninsula in California

With most of the human fossils belonging to Siberians who came from across the Bering Strait dating back to only 9000 years old
----------
The bones of a lost Mexican tribe from the baking sands of Baja California have begun to tell a new story of the peopling of the Americas. Orthodoxy has it that the first American colonists crossed the Bering Straits 12,000 years ago at the close of the last Ice Age. They were people of Mongoloid origin from the Siberian steppes, and they spread slowly from Alaska to Patagonia, and they were the ancestors of all native American tribes. And they were brachycephalic: that is, they tended to have short, wide skulls. (http://www.guardian.co.uk/life/science/story/0,12996,1299197,00.html)

But the Pericues, a people who went extinct in the 18th century, may tell a different story. Their skulls were dolicephalic: that is, long and thin. Other enigmatic evidence is beginning to emerge of an earlier settlement of America - perhaps as early as 30,000 years ago - by long-headed, seafaring people who may have crossed the Pacific by boat, migrating from island to island, until they reached the US Pacific coastline, Silvia Gonzalez of Liverpool John Moores University, told the British Association for the Advancement of Science meeting in Exeter.

"They appear more similar to southern Asians, Australian and populations of the South Pacific rim than they do to northern Asians," she said. "DNA analysis of the Mexican remains suggest that these people were at least partly contemporaneous to the first native American settlers on the continent. We think there were several migration waves into the Americas at different times by different human groups. The timing, route and point of origin of the first colonisation of the Americas remains the most contentious point in human evolution."
----------
dimensions of prehistoric skulls found in Brazil match those of the aboriginal peoples of Australia and Melanesia (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/430944.stm)

The land bridge was formed 11,000 years ago during the ice age, when sea level dropped.

Stone tools and charcoal from the site in Brazil show evidence of human habitation as long ago as 50,000 years

These Asian people have facial features described as mongoloid. However, skulls dug from a depth equivalent to 9,000 to 12,000 years ago are very different.

skull dimensions and facial features match most closely the native people of Australia and Melanesia. These people date back to about 60,000 years

Grahame Walsh, an expert on Australian rock art, found the oldest painting of a boat anywhere in the world. The style of the art means it is at least 17,000 years old, but it could be up to 50,000 years old.

Just three years ago, five African fishermen were caught in a storm and a few weeks later were washed up on the shores of South America. Two of the fishermen died, but three made it alive.
----------
Noticing a pattern, here? The OLDEST remains are actually down in SOUTH America, not near Siberia in NORTH America. If they ALL came from Siberia - you'd see the OPPOSITE dated pattern. But, from maybe ~50,000 years ago to ~12,000 years ago - the American population was largely an "Australesian" seafaring type - and apparently located more in SOUTH Ameria. After that, they got replaced by a more Mongoloid (Asiatic) type - many of whom probably crossed the land bridge formed by the Ice Age en masse ~11,000-12,000 years ago.

And, as you read, just recently, fishermen from Africa drifted over to South America accidentally and survived. So, such "primitive" transoceanic travel (accidental or not) is entirely possible and probably happened with some frequency.

Sorry, but you are extremely OVER-opinionated for the amount of actual knowledge you possess (or lack). Again, no offense, but I assume you must be harboring some personal bias to be this thick-headed?

Also, AGAIN - I DID NOT SAY ANYWHERE THIS WAS AN OPEN-AND-SHUT CASE, yet! Yes, there's already a lot of good, mounting evidence - but the research has really only just begun. So, I don't think you even bothered to read this thread carefully and study the links - most likely just knee-jerk reacted to the thread title and dropped your $.02 PRE-FORMED OPINION.

SunWuKong

09-08-2004, 07:42 AM

Some things for us to consider: Wall building in China really took off in the Ming dynasty. At least what we think of when we think of the great wall of China began in Ming.

yes, but the idea to build the Great Wall started way back in the Qin dynasty, which was not so far removed from the Shang in an ancient historical time-table.

It only seems farfetched to me because a people with that kind of naval capabilities surely would have been able to defend themselves,

that's not necessarily true. naval capabilities does not necessarily equate to military might. for one thing, they would have been fighting land battles, for another, they could simply have been outnumbered. etc etc.

and furthermore could have chosen to flee to somewhere a lot closer than central America. I mean come on, it would have taken months to sail to central America, and AGAINST the natural current of the ocean (unless you are suggesting that they sailed towards Alaska first.

Furthermore the Aztec and Olmec staple was corn, not rice.

It's a very interesting hypothesis, but there are too many holes.

this i agree with.

Hmm, VERY interesting...I didn't know Miao or Southern minorities used knots also. Well, Miao are Chinese, hence I call it the Chinese connection. When I say "Chinese," of course I am including the whole Chinese region.

this highly depends on who you're asking. the Miao are, in fact, just the Chinese term for the Hmong. i highly doubt the Hmong in Southeast Asia and Hmong Americans are going to agree that they are Chinese.

^ Dude, they rode the oceanic current to America. Then tacked down the coastline by wind. There's a myriad of possible reasons why. I don't understand why this is so "inconceivable" to you. Your questions are full of assumptions and poor logic - no offense.

actually it's this theory that the Chinese started the Olmec civilisation that is highly circumstantial and full of assumptions. is it possible? sure. but is it likely? not very. even if Shang refugees did set sail - of which there is no evidence - there could have been a myriad number of circumstances that stopped them from randomly drifting all the way to the Americas. there's not even records found in ancient Olmec civilisation that suggests that they came from a land across a giant body of water. yes, we've discussed the fact that the lack of evidence simply imples that evidence has not been found, not necessarily that evidence does not exist. but hey, the Olmec civilisation could have been started by aliens. we don't have evidence of that, but evidence of that could exist, and we just haven't found it yet.

krome

09-08-2004, 08:11 AM

this highly depends on who you're asking. the Miao are, in fact, just the Chinese term for the Hmong. i highly doubt the Hmong in Southeast Asia and Hmong Americans are going to agree that they are Chinese.
Again, I'm using "Chinese" as a general term here. Perhaps the Incas were more specifically Miao/Hmong, ok...

There are some possible accounts of overseas exploration in Chinese lore:

In China, some people have also inferred from ancient records that the Chinese discovered America. For instance, the Liang Shu (History of the Liang) from the 7th century AD mentions that in the Southern Dynasties period a monk named Huishen crossed the ocean and discovered a land named "Fusang," which Liang Qichao (1873-1929) believed to be today's Mexico. Others have tried to match the places described in the legends of the Shan Hai Jing (Classic of Mountains and Seas) with individual locations in the Americas. It has also been claimed that from Olmec statues it appears that they had the custom of manipulating children's skull bones into a more pointed shape, which was a practice also seen among tribes in northeastern China. (http://www.taiwaninfo.org/info/sinorama/en/8605/605006e3.html)

And, as the magnetic compass is an indispensable seafaring device (exclusively possessed by the Chinese at first), such common technology could be more evidence towards a common culture and imply the same seafaring usage:

In terms of astronomy, the settlements excavated at La Venta are arranged facing eight degrees west of north, while Shang sites face five degrees east of north. What is remarkable about that? In one of his articles Mike Xu writes that the "eight degrees" and "five degrees" are actually with reference to the magnetic north indicated by compasses, and not the true north pole. Thus both actually face true north. He believes that for both peoples to have known how to determine true north as long ago as 1200 BC is no coincidence. (http://www.taiwaninfo.org/info/sinorama/en/8605/605006e3.html)
there's not even records found in ancient Olmec civilisation that suggests that they came from a land across a giant body of water. yes, we've discussed the fact that the lack of evidence simply imples that evidence has not been found,
But in any event, archeological sites from the Olmec and Shang cultures only began to be discovered at the end of the last century, and systematic excavations were not made until the 1930s and 40s. No-one can predict that in future new evidence will not come to light which will completely overturn today's views, or vindicate them.

In fact a major reason why the Olmec are still shrouded in mystery is the of lack any decipherable script, which means that researchers can only piece together Olmec history from excavated pottery and jade artifacts. (http://www.taiwaninfo.org/info/sinorama/en/8605/605006e4.html)
http://www.taiwaninfo.org/info/sinorama/image86/8605006m.gifhttp://www.wahnam.com/QA/answers1999/qa1999images/aprp2b.jpg
Mayan Vs Chinese Temple

SunWuKong

09-08-2004, 08:17 AM

Again, I'm using "Chinese" as a general term here. Perhaps the Incas were more specifically Miao/Hmong, ok...

also if this is true, it would contradict with the evidence that ancient Olmec writing were possibly derived from ancient Chinese writing, because the similarities were found with the ancient writings of Han Chinese. the Hmong did not use that, and in fact, their language is very linguistically different from the Chinese language. i'm not even sure they have the same origin.

unless of course, the Hmong sailed to the Americas to start the Inca civilisation (something that is unlikely because they came from an inland region in southern China/northern part of Southeast Asia), and separately, Han Chinese sailed to the Americas to start the Olmec civilisation.

but the idea that the Miao/Hmong are "Chinese" is a different discussion altogether. keep in mind that Chinese nationalism only arose in the past 100 years or so, whereas before that, the people that lived in China were more distinctly identified by their ethnicities, instead of a "Chinese" identity.

krome

09-08-2004, 08:25 AM

unless of course, the Hmong sailed to the Americas to start the Inca civilisation (something that is unlikely because they came from an inland region in southern China/northern part of Southeast Asia), and separately, Han Chinese sailed to the Americas to start the Olmec civilisation.
BINGO. We're likely talking about separate migration waves here separated by thousands of years. Shang/Olmec first and then Miao(Hmong)/Inca. Don't lump them all together as one and confuse the parallels.

Also, I think the Southern "Chinese" peoples did migrate a lot. As posted earlier, the Yi zhu probably made at least one migration wave to Japan, and I suspect the Tibetans/Naxi may have made some to NW America and lower, as well.

A.R.A.M.

09-08-2004, 11:30 AM

yes, but the idea to build the Great Wall started way back in the Qin dynasty, which was not so far removed from the Shang in an ancient historical time-table.

SunWuKong,

You are absolutely right that wall-building began long before the Ming. I was not challenging that. I was just stating that the Great Wall, as we know it today, was a Ming creation. The Great Wall in the Qin was nothing like it is today. It was more of a mud rampart. I do not doubt, however, that stone fortifications are much, much older than the Ming. I felt that since Krome was comparing the Incan stone fortresses with the Great Wall, I would point out that fact. It was not meant as a confirmation of Krome's theory, just a parallel to think about. But then I added my reservations about China influencing the Incans architecturally.

As an aside, while the Shang appears to be close to the Qin in the succession of dynasties, the two were separated by around 800 years. The Shang fell around 1000 b.c.e.; the Qin consolidated China completely in 221 b.c.e.

But if the Shang fell around 1000 then the alledged Shang settlers in the Americas, who supposedly arrived in 1200, weren't fleeing the conquest of Shang by the Zhou and their allies.

BeTheReds

09-08-2004, 05:06 PM

^ The Americas was likely populated by repeated migration waves over the land bridge AND from seamen across the ocean.
----------
Recent archeological evidence studies seems to suggest that the first Americans came from Australia and not Siberia as has been widely believed. (http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/articleshow/843564.cms)

Analysis of 12000-year-old human skeletons in the deserts of Baja peninsula in California

With most of the human fossils belonging to Siberians who came from across the Bering Strait dating back to only 9000 years old
----------
The bones of a lost Mexican tribe from the baking sands of Baja California have begun to tell a new story of the peopling of the Americas. Orthodoxy has it that the first American colonists crossed the Bering Straits 12,000 years ago at the close of the last Ice Age. They were people of Mongoloid origin from the Siberian steppes, and they spread slowly from Alaska to Patagonia, and they were the ancestors of all native American tribes. And they were brachycephalic: that is, they tended to have short, wide skulls. (http://www.guardian.co.uk/life/science/story/0,12996,1299197,00.html)

But the Pericues, a people who went extinct in the 18th century, may tell a different story. Their skulls were dolicephalic: that is, long and thin. Other enigmatic evidence is beginning to emerge of an earlier settlement of America - perhaps as early as 30,000 years ago - by long-headed, seafaring people who may have crossed the Pacific by boat, migrating from island to island, until they reached the US Pacific coastline, Silvia Gonzalez of Liverpool John Moores University, told the British Association for the Advancement of Science meeting in Exeter.

"They appear more similar to southern Asians, Australian and populations of the South Pacific rim than they do to northern Asians," she said. "DNA analysis of the Mexican remains suggest that these people were at least partly contemporaneous to the first native American settlers on the continent. We think there were several migration waves into the Americas at different times by different human groups. The timing, route and point of origin of the first colonisation of the Americas remains the most contentious point in human evolution."
----------
dimensions of prehistoric skulls found in Brazil match those of the aboriginal peoples of Australia and Melanesia (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/430944.stm)

The land bridge was formed 11,000 years ago during the ice age, when sea level dropped.

Stone tools and charcoal from the site in Brazil show evidence of human habitation as long ago as 50,000 years

These Asian people have facial features described as mongoloid. However, skulls dug from a depth equivalent to 9,000 to 12,000 years ago are very different.

skull dimensions and facial features match most closely the native people of Australia and Melanesia. These people date back to about 60,000 years

Grahame Walsh, an expert on Australian rock art, found the oldest painting of a boat anywhere in the world. The style of the art means it is at least 17,000 years old, but it could be up to 50,000 years old.

Just three years ago, five African fishermen were caught in a storm and a few weeks later were washed up on the shores of South America. Two of the fishermen died, but three made it alive.
----------
Noticing a pattern, here? The OLDEST remains are actually down in SOUTH America, not near Siberia in NORTH America. If they ALL came from Siberia - you'd see the OPPOSITE dated pattern. But, from maybe ~50,000 years ago to ~12,000 years ago - the American population was largely an "Australesian" seafaring type - and apparently located more in SOUTH Ameria. After that, they got replaced by a more Mongoloid (Asiatic) type - many of whom probably crossed the land bridge formed by the Ice Age en masse ~11,000-12,000 years ago.

And, as you read, just recently, fishermen from Africa drifted over to South America accidentally and survived. So, such "primitive" transoceanic travel (accidental or not) is entirely possible and probably happened with some frequency.

I was already aware that people had come to the Americas across the atlantic. The natural current and the relative distance makes such a voyage possible, if even accidental.

Anyway regardless, accidental or not, 3 fisherman among a huge native population aren't going to start a new civilization. And for the shang to have influenced an entire native population to start a new civ, they'd have had to come over in great numbers, indicating a mass exodous, with the possibility that they'd have to have known where they are going.

Sorry, but you are extremely OVER-opinionated for the amount of actual knowledge you possess (or lack). Again, no offense, but I assume you must be harboring some personal bias to be this thick-headed?

No, it's you harboring the personal bias trying to believe in something that there simply isn't enough evidence to suggest. Click on the very first link that you gave and you'll find that archaeological and linguistic scholars, even Chinese ones, think that this is highly unlikely.

I'm not being thick headed at all. I've looked at your links, some of the similarities are profound. It's possible that Mr. Xu is right. It's more likely that he's wrong. I don't think that this is a thick headed response. A thick headed response is full denial when all the evidence is in front of you. And your evidence is slanty eyed statues and temples that neither the shang nor the olmec built.

krome

09-08-2004, 05:19 PM

No, it's you harboring the personal bias trying to believe in something that there simply isn't enough evidence to suggest. Click on the very first link that you gave and you'll find that archaeological and linguistic scholars, even Chinese ones, think that this is highly unlikely.

There's some initial skepticism from some unfamiliar with all the research, but also a LOT of support so far. I mean, it's an idea that has been floating around Mesoamerican researchers and sinologists for decades now - there was just never a cross-cultural person to make the connections.
some of the similarities are profound. It's possible that Mr. Xu is right. It's more likely that he's wrong.

And your evidence is slanty eyed statues and temples that neither the shang nor the olmec built.
WTF? :confused: How is the evidence "profound" yet it's still "more likely" that he's wrong?

And the Mayans arose near the end of the Olmecs. If you read page 2, you would also learn that it's also theorized that many Mayan pyramids were actually derived or built on top of older Olmec ones.

And, if you also looked at the current map posted there, you will notice how the PACIFIC currents go towards America and all the way down to Baja at the equator.

Is the case open-and-shut? No. Have a lot of ruins and artifacts been recovered from the Olmec culture? No. Has a lot of what HAS been collected point towards a Chinese origin/influence? Yes.

PS - Just curious - are you part-Japanese or anti-Sinoist, perchance?

Seamus

09-08-2004, 05:40 PM

Furthermore the Aztec and Olmec staple was corn, not rice.

The Shang staple wasn't rice either. Rice only grew in what is now southern China, in regions that were not part of the Shang, or original "Chinese," territory. More likely, they ate millets, barley or things like that. (Wheat arrived from the Middle East only later on, so I don't think they had wheat, either, though I could be wrong).

Something you guys haven't mentioned is that the native Americans had no knowledge of metal. All of their tools were made of stone. Yet the Shang knew how to use bronze and copper. You'd think that if the Olmecs were indeed influenced by the Shang, they would have picked up metallurgy.

BeTheReds

09-08-2004, 06:19 PM

The Shang staple wasn't rice either. Rice only grew in what is now southern China, in regions that were not part of the Shang, or original "Chinese," territory. More likely, they ate millets, barley or things like that. (Wheat arrived from the Middle East only later on, so I don't think they had wheat, either, though I could be wrong).

Something you guys haven't mentioned is that the native Americans had no knowledge of metal. All of their tools were made of stone. Yet the Shang knew how to use bronze and copper. You'd think that if the Olmecs were indeed influenced by the Shang, they would have picked up metallurgy.

The corn thing was to contradict Kromes rice evidence from earlier.

The link mentions that the reason they didnt have metalurgy is because conveniently none of the people who were experts in metalurgy made it out of the kingdom, and since they were fleeing they didn't take heavy bronze stuff with them.

That's a pretty huge assumption, along with the assumption that the people were seafaring, along with the assumption that they had compasses to orient their towns in such a way as finding true north (though anyone with no compas could easitly find true north or south by observing the path of the sun on equinox days, OR Looking for the north star or southern cross...)

somehow in their rush out of the kingdom, they couldn't bring their bronzework, yet they brought plenty of food supplies for a voyage across the pacific, They passed up on North America despite finding land there first, then they landed in central america and promply forgot how to sail.

PS - Just curious - are you part-Japanese or anti-Sinoist, perchance?

No, I am not part Japanese. why would that matter if I was?

Anti-Sinoist? I don't know. I definately do not accept the common uneducated layman claims by some chinese people that all of Asia is descended from them, that Korean and Japanese Languages are really bastardizations of Chinese. If that's anti-sinoist then yes I am.

You're probably someone who thinks that the Koguryo kingdom was Chinese in origin.

Define for me what sinoist is and I'll tell you if I'm anti-sinoist or not.

WTF? :confused: How is the evidence "profound" yet it's still "more likely" that he's wrong?

It is profound in that it opens up the possibility that there might have been some connection between the two peoples.

It is more likely that he is wrong because I think he is making a lot of assumptions and that lots of his ideas are not based on evidence, but extrapolations. Until the "missing evidence" appears, it is more likely that the similarities between the two cultures are pure concedence.

krome

09-08-2004, 06:31 PM

That's a pretty huge assumption, along with the assumption that the people were seafaring, along with the assumption that they had compasses to orient their towns in such a way as finding true north (though anyone with no compas could easitly find true north or south by observing the path of the sun on equinox days, OR Looking for the north star or southern cross...)
somehow in their rush out of the kingdom, they couldn't bring their bronzework, yet they brought plenty of food supplies for a voyage across the pacific, They passed up on North America despite finding land there first, then they landed in central america and promply forgot how to sail.
Um, I can bring a "handy" compass* on a camping trip. I can't bring my "handy"
metallurgical smelting kit and blast furnace too. Lmao. :confused:

I am confused too about the significance of a true north orientation, tho. What does that prove? I'm missing his connection to a magnetic compass here. *Which, I don't think the Chinese invented until like ~200-100 BC anyways.

But these guys didn't need to bring much food, maybe just some freshwater. Especially if they were fisherman - they could...just...FISH.
You're probably someone who thinks that the Koguryo kingdom was Chinese in origin.
Never studied that, is that the ancient Korean empire?

BeTheReds

09-08-2004, 06:58 PM

Um, I can bring a "handy" compass* on a camping trip. I can't bring my "handy"
metallurgical smelting kit and blast furnace too. Lmao. :confused:

I am confused too about the significance of a true north orientation, tho. What does that prove? I'm missing his connection to a magnetic compass here. *Which, I don't think the Chinese invented until like ~200-100 BC anyways.

One of the nesecities for oceanic travel and mapmaking is a compass. He's suggesting that the Shang had compasses which enabled them to navigate their way to the Americas, and that they were an advanced sea faring people. The compass was then forgotten because the Zhou overthrew and destroyed the Shang kingdom and its culture and the compass was lost. It was then "re-invented" later. In order for his theory to float he has to contradict things that are almost taken as absolutes in both Mesoamerican and Chinese history. He is suggesting that peoples from China created a compass, forgot how to use it, and reinvented it.

Even so, he's ignoring the fact that true north can be found with a protractor and a stick on an equinox day at noon. There is plenty of evidence to suggest that at least the Aztec knew about equinoxes, as any observation of aesthetic shadows on certain temples in mexico on equinox or solstice days can prove. Thus his point is irrelevant.

But these guys didn't need to bring much food, maybe just some freshwater. Especially if they were fisherman - they could...just...FISH.

months of fresh water for so many people... They had enough time to collect huge supplies of water, but couldn't bring one piece of bronze with them?

Never studied that, is that the ancient Korean empire?
http://forums.yellowworld.org/showthread.php?t=11520

krome

09-08-2004, 09:02 PM

^ Well, again, some (or most) of these seafarers may have been ACCIDENTALLY swept up in the trans-Pacific current and deposited on American shores. And, if African fishermen could survive the Atlantic journey unprepared, why not others?

Now, BINGO!!!! :eek:

In the thirteenth century the Mongol emperor Kublai Khan sent a formidable armament against Japan. The expedition failed, and the fleet was scattered by a violent tempest. Some of the ships, it is said, were cast upon the coast of Peru, and their crews are supposed to have founded the mighty empire of the Incas, conquered three centuries later by Pizarro.

There have been a great many instances of Japanese junks drifting upon the American coast, many of them after having floated helplessly about for many months. Mr. Brooks gives forty-one particular instances of such wrecks, beginning in 1782, twenty-eight of which date since 1850. Only twelve of the whole number were deserted. (http://www.publicbookshelf.com/public_html/The_Great_Republic_By_the_Master_Historians_Vol_I/nativeame_c.html) In a majority of cases the survivors remained permanently at the place where the waves had brought them. There is no record in existence of a Japanese woman having been saved from a wreck. The reasons for the presence of Japanese and the absence of Chinese junks are simple. There is a current of cold water setting from the Arctic Ocean south along the east coast of Asia, which drives all the Chinese wrecks south. The Kuro Siwo, or "black stream," commonly known as the Japan current, runs northward past the eastern coast of the Japan Islands, then curves round to the east and south, sweeping the whole west coast of North America, a branch, or eddy, moving towards the Sandwich Islands. A drifting wreck would be carried towards the American coast at an average rate of ten miles a day by this current.

Even Indigenous Americans Are Chinese, too? (http://english.chosun.com/w21data/html/news/200408/200408270001.html)

Moreover, 16 statues and six jade batons were discovered in the Amazon region. The writing on the jade batons was the same as writing from the ancient Chinese Yin-Shang Dynasty. The writing, they claim, were the names of two mythical ancestors of the Chinese people.

The team also claimed that a stone anchor discovered in California in 1975, presumed to be 3,000 years old, was proof that Chinese crossed over to the Americas. They said when scientists performed chemical tests on the stone, it turned out to be of a kind of rock not found in the Americas, but of one only found along the Taiwan Straits.

A.R.A.M.

09-08-2004, 09:06 PM

Um, I can bring a "handy" compass* on a camping trip. I can't bring my "handy"
metallurgical smelting kit and blast furnace too. Lmao. :confused:

Never studied that, is that the ancient Korean empire?

The northern orientation of buildings, particularly palaces, relates to the royal ideology of ancient China. In ancient times, socio-political relations were homologized with the Heavens. Kings sat facing south to emulate the North Star. The rationale went, I think, that just as it was natural for the stars to circle the North Star, so too was it deemed natural to for the zhuhou to pay homage to the King. At least that is what is said in the Analects. Who knows how far back this tradition goes. But this northern orientation is important for Xu's argument because the northern orientation of buildings suggests classical Chinese ideas of government. At least that's where I think Xu is going with the northern thing.

I think there is some conflating of two separate arguments Krome's making in this thread. The original argument Krome was making was the Shang theory of Olmec origins. A later observation was the possibility a later Chinese (or Miao) migration to South America that influenced the Incans.

BeTheReds

09-08-2004, 09:10 PM

You contradict yourself even in your own posts.

There is a current of cold water setting from the Arctic Ocean south along the east coast of Asia, which drives all the Chinese wrecks south

A later observation was the possibility a later Chinese (or Miao) migration to South America that influenced the Incans.

Or mongol, from what he's saying.

krome

09-08-2004, 09:14 PM

You contradict yourself even in your own posts.

Or mongol, from what he's saying.
Uh, the seafarers could have gotten to Japan first and then went from there? Or some other island-hopping route? Yes, it is possible to freely navigate off the coast of China with the oceanic current or against it... :rolleyes: C'mon man, use your noggins here!

And the Mongols could have employed various tribes on their boats. I mean, it's just another theory - but interesting how the timeline matches up and someone else had already proposed it.

You seem h*llbent on denial. But all your qualms have logical possible answers. Sorry.

BeTheReds

09-08-2004, 09:19 PM

The source that you linked to just now also says this...

It is true, the Old World may have been originally peopled from the New

That doesn't back up Xu's theory at all.

It also says this

Mr. John Ranking, who leads the van of theorists in this direction, has written a goodly volume upon this subject, which certainly, if read by itself, ought to convince the reader as satisfactorily that America was settled by Mongols, as Kingsborough's work that it was reached by the Jews,
GASP JEWS! KROME! YOU WOULDNT WANT TO SUPPORT THE IDEA THAT THE JEWS POPULATED AMERICA DO YOU?

or Jones's argument that the Tyrians had a hand in its civilization. That a Mongol fleet was sent against Japan, and that it was dispersed by a storm, is matter of history; but that any of the distressed ships were driven upon the coast of Peru can be but mere conjecture

So basically this source it telling you to take that theory with a grain of salt...

Uh, the seafarers could have gotten to Japan first and then went from there? Or some other island-hopping route? Yes, it is possible to freely navigate off the coast of China with the oceanic current or against it... :rolleyes: C'mon man, use your noggins here!

So why were the olmecs not seafaring then?

COME ON MAN! USE UR HEAD! UR THICK! UR A DUMBASS! I'M RIGHT AND YOUR WRONG BECAUSE CHINA IS BETTER THAN EVERYONE ELSE!

krome

09-08-2004, 09:21 PM

The source that you linked to just now also says this...

That doesn't back up Xu's theory at all.
"The theory that America was peopled, or at least partly peopled, from eastern Asia, is certainly more widely advocated than any other, and, is moreover based upon a more reasonable and logical foundation than any other. It is true, the Old World may have been originally peopled from the New, and it is also true that the Americans may have had an autochthonic origin; but, if we must suppose that they have originated on another continent, then it is to Asia that we must first look for proofs of such an origin, at least so far as the people of northwestern America are concerned."

I think he was just listing those as pure alternative hypotheticals there, before "eliminating" them. I mean, Americans possibly having an autochthonic origin? Well, I guess anything's possible, but nobody has proposed nor found any evidence of that whatsoever, yet. Neither for Old World -> Asia really. At least none that I've heard of. I'm sure some reverse-migration was always possible, but human remains in Asia date back MUUCCCHHH further than any of the oldest ones found in the New World by far.

How do we know the Olmecs weren't seafaring? Again, our archaeological knowledge of them is still extremely limited, as already repeated before. Maybe they were, maybe they weren't. Maybe they didn't need or want to be. Etc etc. Use your noggins?

Look, this is a legit research topic, if you are that desperate to make a mockery of me or it, just take it to the rant room. You're polluting this thread with your childish antics. Payce kiddo.

A.R.A.M.

09-08-2004, 09:28 PM

Krome,

I just skimmed the link you provided about the "Indians" being Chinese.

That article is easily dismissed. The Chinese "scientific" expedition claims that the local word for "indian" is almost a match for the Shang term, "Anyang of the Yin dynasty." Well, the indigenous peoples of America were mistakenly named Indians by stupid Europeans, not Shang settlers. Given such a colossal blunder, I now have to doubt that their claim they found jade scepters with "Chinese writing from the Shang." These are not serious scholars. At best, they are scholars of the same stripe who are bending over backwards to prove that Koguryo was a Chinese kingdom.

BeTheReds

09-08-2004, 09:32 PM

Look, this is a legit research topic, if you are that desperate to make a mockery of me or it, just take it to the rant room. You're polluting this thread with your childish antics. Payce kiddo.

You're the one making a mockery of it, not me. I've learned something from reading this topic and I've repeated a million times that I'm willing to accept that it is possible that the Shang may have had some influence upon Olmec culture. But if you take an objective look at the evidence, there are too many holes.

Your approach to the whole thing is also entirely too simple. Isn't it possible that two cultures on complete other sides of the planet can develop some similarities? Was the wheel only invented in one place?

krome

09-08-2004, 09:37 PM

^^ Agreed, really that was more a Korean article mocking the Chinese claims. And the "Indian" one was certainly a glaring error. I believe that was bestowed by Columbus cuz he thought he had landed in India, the dum@ss?!! :biggrin:

Anyways, so I just extracted a few possible nuggets of worth from it, that's all.

You're the one making a mockery of it, not me. I've learned something from reading this topic and I've repeated a million times that I'm willing to accept that it is possible that the Shang may have had some influence upon Olmec culture. But if you take an objective look at the evidence, there are too many holes.

Your approach to the whole thing is also entirely too simple. Isn't it possible that two cultures on complete other sides of the planet can develop some similarities? Was the wheel only invented in one place?
Too many holes? Well, but holes don't disprove a theory. They simply don't prove it. So far, NOTHING has disproved it yet. There's only a small amount of info to work with - true. However, a lot of that does point towards a Chinese origin. I mean, when you combine the Asiatic sculptures, writing, architecture, fabrics, phenotypes, etc - taken altogether it'd be MIGHTY COINCIDENTAL to have all arose independently. I mean, really. Unless they're vestiges of an even older link, it's almost too hard to believe already as it is.

I think a lot of the others in this thread are on my same level too. Not stating it as FACT, but certainly putting some decent stock in the possibility - awaiting further developments.

BeTheReds

09-08-2004, 09:52 PM

Anyways, so I just extracted a few possible nuggets of worth from it, that's all.

Translation: I manipulated what the report was actually saying by taking small excerpts of the text that support my claim yet leaving out the ones that crush it.

Too many holes? Well, but holes don't disprove a theory. They simply don't prove it.

I agree with you there. And since there are so many holes, we have little to work with.

Some people have speculated that the Mesoamerican civs were set up by Aliens, others have said that they were set up by the indigeonous people of Antarctica following a crustal shift that moved their country from the tropical region into the antarctic. There have been maps created that show antarctica without ice on it which were made before antarctica had even been discovered. If indeed there was some advanced seafaring civ that got wiped out from a great catastrophe (Atlantis theory) then the cultural similarities between the two peoples could be attributed to them.

None of these far fetched sounding theories have been disproven.

I'm not hellbent on denial, I'm just not going to accept a theory that has little evidence and too many holes to even suggest plausability or likelihood at this point.

I think a lot of the others in this thread are on my same level too. Not stating it as FACT, but certainly putting some decent stock in the possibility - awaiting further developments.

Well if you're not stating it as fact then we don't have a problem.

I'm open to the possibility provided we see more evidence. Until then my position is that it is a minute posibility but highly unlikely.

A.R.A.M.

09-08-2004, 09:58 PM

Krome,

The "Miao theory of Incan origins" most likely can not be reconciled with the "Mongol theory of Incan origins." If the Mongols were the ones who built the Incan empire, then the Miao were not involved. Mongols used Chinese and Korean conscripts, I believe, in their attack on Japan, not Miao levies.

There are also some internal inconsistencies in the Miao theory as well. Linguistically, the Miao at that time probably weren't familiar with Chinese, or at least barely familiar with it. Maybe a couple of chiefs, but certainly not the entire populace. The use of knots must also be taken with a grain of salt. The use of knots as memnomic devices by southern peoples was a cliche that Chinese scholar applied broadly in their effort to tar the southern peoples as being less civilized than the Han. I don't know if the Miao actually employed this practice.

Some people have speculated that the Mesoamerican civs were set up by Aliens,

Haha, I've heard the same crackpot theories as well. I recently saw TV some show claiming that there are runways for alien spaceships in the Andes.

krome

09-08-2004, 10:29 PM

BeTheReds

09-08-2004, 11:01 PM

BTR - I LINKED all the articles I quoted, so I wasn't "hiding" anything. But, I'm not going to bother posting speculative parts in the article even I don't agree with - and then have to defend them. Jeezus.

And for the 10000th time, NO, I AM NOT STATING THIS AS FACT P-PO!!!!!

^ Note: The Incas used no written language. I can't speak much about Miao literacy. Dunno. Man, this thread is really forcing me to edumacate myself.

The mongol theory is also whack because they had a writing system and they communicated with japan and korea using chinese character script. SURELY if they had founded inca america the chinese character script would be everywhere. in Peru. I mean, come on, the mongol invasions of Japan were supposed to have taken place in the 1200s AD long after writing systems in the region were well entrenched...

krome

09-08-2004, 11:13 PM

^ Well, it may be. Keep in mind though that a large % of Chinese are illiterate even today. But just imagine over 800 years ago! I mean, it may have only been the scholars and elites then who were literate. And those would typically not be the types out seafaring.

I am rather skeptical of the Mongol theory also because the Incas look more like the diminutive Miao - and their dress is still nearly identical too. Also, they used strings for counting - if the Miao did in fact use those, too. So, the evidence on the Inca side does seem to point more towards the Miao.

PS - As an interesting sidenote to "Jews populating America," Christopher "Columbus" Colon may actually have been a closet Jew (http://www.fortunecity.com/millenium/southwater/113/was_christopher_columbus_jewish.htm).

His last name, as presented at the Court of Ferdinand and Isabella was "Colón", a Jewish variation of the more common Spanish "Colom" or "Colombo". (http://www.fortunecity.com/millenium/southwater/113/columbus.htm#)

His official report of his first voyage to America to Ferdinand and Isabella began with the following words:" And thus, having expelled all the Jews from all your kingdoms and dominions, in the month of January, Your Highnesses..." A strange beginning statement for someone that just returned from a remarkable, supposedly impossible voyage. Of course the reference to January was just as strange.

Luis de Santangel, probably a Marrano or Converso, but certainly a recent convert to Christianity loaned the crown 17,000 ducats for Columbus' ships for the voyage in time to leave before August 2nd.

Columbus employed uniquely Jewish dates and phrases. Instead of referring to the "destruction" or "fall of Jerusalem," he used the phrase "the destruction of the second house." for the destruction of the second Temple using a literal translation of the Hebrew "Bayit."

He also employed the Hebrew reckoning of 68 a.d. instead of 70 a.d.

Columbus is said to have used a unique triangular signature similar to inscriptions found on gravestones of Jewish cemeteries in Spain and South France.

And perhaps most importantly, in the upper left corner of his letters to his son Diego, was the Hebrew letters "Bet Hey", which stand for the Hebrew blessing "Be Ezrat Ha Shem," or "with G-d's help."

only information which the explorer and discoverer of America gives us about his origins is that he is of Catalan nationality and of Jewish ancestry (http://www.cristobalcolondeibiza.com/eng/eng10.htm)

But, I digress - let's stick to the Asian/Indio topic here.

BeTheReds

09-08-2004, 11:17 PM

So the guys commanding the ships were illiterate? did they have to get every order by word of mouth?

krome

09-08-2004, 11:21 PM

BeTheReds

09-08-2004, 11:39 PM

I'm not a dumbass krome. I just think it's highly unlikely that an entire mongolian armada would have no literates in it.

Seamus

09-09-2004, 12:31 AM

Guys, play nice.
Keep in mind that if you're talking about a civilization that dates back to 2000-1000 BC, the people then are not going to be the same as the people who currently live there. You are projecting too many of your present-day biases onto the people of that time. From a purely physical standpoint, the Olmecs probably looked somewhat different from modern Indians in Mesoamerica. Similarly, the Shang people probably looked quite different from the people who currently live in northern China, and similarly for the Mongols (keep in mind that the Mongols that overran much of Eurasia during the 13th-14th centuries started from a few small bands, rapidly gained power, then faded away just as quickly. I'm not even sure who would have been considered a Mongol during the centuries before the Common Era. The Mongols of the Genghis Khan's day and age could have been a small remnant of a much larger population long ago, or conversely, they could have been an almagation or numerous previously unassociated groups). Back then, there was no notion of being "Chinese," "Mongol," or "Mesoamerican."

BeTheReds

09-09-2004, 02:37 AM

http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Academy/8919/decip1.html

Take a look. Not only does this site present scholarly articles which suggest that the Olmec writing system is related to African writing system, it even suggests that the Olmecs were Blacks.

Furthermore it goes on to show that the Olmecs wrote using an Alphabet, not morpho-sylabic pictographs.

The epicantical fold in eyelids is not only an East Asian trait. It is present in every human fetus and only dissappears upon development of the fetus of babies of some races.

Many african peoples also have this trait. There is a whole lot more wealth of evidence to support this theory that the Olmecs were Africans then there is to suggest that their origins were Chinese.

Edit: I see by re-reading the thread that this link has already been posted. But you didn't have time to read it all. Take the time please. I think it is important to understand other theories as well, and in my opinion, this one carries more weight.

The Artworks that the Olmec are most famous for are the gigantic stone heads.
http://micahwright.com/olmec/colossal.html

Above is a link to view all the heads

http://micahwright.com/olmec/heads/Monument01v.jpg

Here is one.

Not that this proves anything at all, but most of the gigantic heads do not look East Asian in appearance, and instead look African.

I'll admit that you make a good point when you show artwork with seemingly east-asian faces, but wouldn't these heads also show east-asian faces as well?

Or is it wrong to classify these heads with the smaller artifacts and artwork as both the art of the Olmecs?

krome

09-09-2004, 06:06 AM

SunWuKong

09-09-2004, 08:28 AM

The mongol theory is also whack because they had a writing system and they communicated with japan and korea using chinese character script. SURELY if they had founded inca america the chinese character script would be everywhere. in Peru. I mean, come on, the mongol invasions of Japan were supposed to have taken place in the 1200s AD long after writing systems in the region were well entrenched...

also don't forget that the Mongols sucked at seafaring.

ok, anyway, i think we all agree that it is possible that the Olmec civilisation was founded by the Chinese, but there's not enough evidence to prove it as fact. how likely this might have happened is up for argument and the likeliness is difficult to quantify.

please stick to the argument and the issue instead of calling each other dumbass and being an overall ass to each other. this is an interesting issue. respect each other's opinions no matter how much you disagree.

kuilong

09-09-2004, 12:00 PM

A.R.A.M. - No, it's a separate link altogether as far as I know. Do note that the founding of the Inca dynasty took place before the 12th century (http://staff.esuhsd.org/~balochie/studentprojects/incas/) as a small ethnic group. So, with that later starting date, Chinese pronounciation would have been far closer to modern-day speech. Interestingly, their language was called "quehua" (http://www.wsu.edu/~dee/CIVAMRCA/INCAS.HTM). Well, I do recognize "hua" as "language" in Mandarin right off the bat! :eek:

It's actually "Quechua" (pronounce it as if it was Spanish). And I don't think you realize how likely chance resemblances are between languages -- here's an example with Chinese and Quechua (http://www.zompist.com/chanceph.htm) for instance (and a general page (http://www.zompist.com/chance.htm) on the likelihood of chance resemblances).

No, it's a separate link altogether as far as I know. Do note that the founding of the Inca dynasty took place before the 12th century as a small ethnic group. So, with that later starting date, Chinese pronounciation would have been far closer to modern-day speech.

Languages change more in 900 years than you realize. Most modern English speakers need to read Chaucer (who wrote only 600 years ago) in translation. To illustrate, here's a sample from the Ormulum, a twelfth century English Biblical exegesis (transcription errors are mine; as are orthographic changes, e.g. I've changed eth to "th" and written doubled characters after one another. ezh is represented as "zh"):

Off all the enngleflocc the fell. Off heoffness aend till helle. Ne raep himm nohht spa the he thezhzhm. Fra pine pollde lesenn. Forr thi thatt tezhzh ne gilltenn nohht. Purrh flaeshess unntrunesse. Acc thurrh the lathe modizhniss.

Nothing like modern Mandarin existed back then, especially as Mandarin isn't very conservative where consonants or tones are concerned (in fact, some of the major Mandarin sound changes, like /k/ --> /d?/ happaned as recently has the 18th or 19th centuries, I think). I don't think any of us would understand any spoken Chinese during the 12th century.

GASP JEWS! KROME! YOU WOULDNT WANT TO SUPPORT THE IDEA THAT THE JEWS POPULATED AMERICA DO YOU?

Isn't that a Mormon idea?

The similarity comes from the possible hundreds of thousands of Asians crossing the FRICKIN LAND BRIDGE OVER THE BERING STRAIGHT! NOT FROM CHINESE REFUGEES OR COLONISTS IN MEXICO!

Joe Kieyoomia, a Navajo GI, was apparently tortured by the Japanese for months for being mistaken as a Japanese-American. After that, they tried to make him break the Navajo code-talkers, but bungled the opportunity by beating him when he admitted he couldn't understand them.

A.R.A.M.

09-09-2004, 12:02 PM

^ Yes, that Afrocentric link was posted earlier. But they also claim there were Black Shang* as well - so even by their theories there would still be an Olmec/Shang connection. I've not really delved into all that - but it has already been noted in this thread that there translations were based off inaccurate sketches - not the actual celts or photos of them like Dr. Mike Xu used. Go back to page 2 and read about that.

Yes, Africans and even some Europeans have monolids. However, to a far lesser frequency and typically lesser degree of "slittiness." The key though is that THERE ARE NO AFRICANS WITH NATURALLY STRAIGHT HAIR. Therefore, all the statues with BOTH "slitty" eyes AND straight hair - are by all chances NOT African.

As far as the stone heads - they appear far more SE Asian to me. The squat, wide round/square faces (http://www.overlake.org/Cambodia/images/Cambodian%20Children%20110_jpg.jpg) often typical. I've actually not seen many Africans or African art with such featured brachycephalic skull shapes. Although, granted, these faces are less extreme and thus more vague and indeterminate. I think the East Asian faces are far more clearly East Asian. These are more open to debate - and are harder to prove either way like an inkblot.

But even today, Mesoamerican Indios still retain basic Mongoloid, not "Negroid" features. Straight (not kinky) black hair, more brachycephalic skulls and more Asiatic eyes.

Hence, even from first appearances alone, the Afrocentric theory seems rather weak and wishful to me. But, I reserve judgment until actually researching and weighing the evidence myself.

* Some of this was based off the fundamental mistranslation of "hei" as meaning strictly "black." But, it can mean anything from dark (relative) to black. There is no separate word for "dark." So, "hei" skintone could simply be tanned (quite common in China) - not black. With such a basic error like that, it makes me wonder about the rest of their research? Still, I reserve judgment until actually rsearching it myself... (I'll try to get around to reading that link and some others, but DAYM it's long and damn I'm busy!)

Seamus - I'm not sure how "different" fairly isolated groups would necessarily look after breeding for generations within the same limited gene pool. I think there was far more intrabreeding than interbreeding back then. People were more tribal and stayed in compact villages. And I've seen Chinese artwork from the Han Dynasty (~25-220 AD) and the people portrayed looked no different than today.

I don't see where the authors of the paper on the African theory of Olmec origins posted at http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Academy/8919/decip1.html connect the Manding with the Shang. I don't see any mention of the "Black Shang" in the article. Perhaps some scholars claim that the Shang were African, but the particular authors of this paper are not making that claim. It would seem unfair to fault one scholar for the errors of another. Just because they take an afrocentric approach to an issue does not mean that all scholars who adopt such an approach agree on everything or are arguing the same thing. They should not automatically be conflated.

In an earlier post you stated that the Olmec script has yet to be deciphered. The article above is precisely on the deciphering of the Olmec script(s) using the Manding scripts. You cite my earlier posts as saying their depictions are innaccurate. That is a misrepresentation of my position. I admitted the possibility that they did, but I never said they did. I also accounted for the poor quality of their reproduction by saying it looked like a copy of a copy of a copy, much like the shitty images we find in course readers in undergraduate classes. Indeed, judging from the image of spiral binding in their picture, I would say that the picture is taken from just such a reader.

Also, the celts were discovered half a century ago. I am sure that scholars working from an Afrocentric perspective have examined them, especially since the Afrocentric theory of Olmec origins has been around since the 1920's. Xu did not discover the celts, nor does he own them. Moreover, in my earlier post, I maintained--and still maintain--that Xu's photograph of Celt #4 may not capture the fainter markings on the celt.

Moreover, the paper cited above explores the archeaological circumstances of the celts in addition to the script itself. Xu does not do this.

But the clincher is this: they have not only translated the writing on the celts that Xu thinks is Chinese, but also other examples of Olmec script found in widely different circumstances. I think the onus is on Xu and his partisans to translate the celts and other examples of Olmec writing using Chinese. If they can do it, and not just a character here, a character there, I think that the case for the Shang origins of Olmec writings would be much, much stronger.

The African origins of Olmec writing may not be airtight, but it is certainly no less plausible than the Shang theory.

As for the statuary, that is an issue that needs to be resolved. Not just the artwork that resembles your dad, but also the artwork that appears to depict Africanfeatures.

But BeTheReds has raised an interesting issue with the sea voyage from China to the Americas. Why didn't they land in North America? You've maintained that they went down to Mexico. But that's the problem: the first traces of Olmec civilization are not on Mexico's Pacific Coast, but rather along the coast of the Gulf of Mexico. That's a long voyage around South Africa and back up to the Gulf of Mexico.

BeTheReds

09-09-2004, 10:30 PM

I think the East Asian faces are far more clearly East Asian.

You didn't adress this when I asked it to you before, but why can't the artwork be East-Asian in appearance because East Asians crossed the land bridge over the Bering Strait? Wouldn't the majority of meso-american people of that time then be East Asian in appearance?

The East Asian looking faces on some of the statues seems to be a big point for you, but not for Xu himself even. That's because the native stock of people from that region has those traits.

(This is a serious question. Please don't reply with USE UR NOGGINS or HELLO or whatever.)

krome

09-09-2004, 11:38 PM

kuilong - Yes, the "quecHUA" similarity could be entirely coincidental. That was just an incidental possibility I saw. As far as your phonetic probabilities, well that could apply to the Incan town names I suppose, but not the Olmec written ideograms. As far as morphing pronounciations, I wasn't aware that English had changed so much. You sure about that? I mean, what the h*ll is "thezhzhm?" But regardless, I'm not sure how much Chinese changed. It's not alphabet-based and every word is monosyllabic. That could make it more stable. Or not. I dunno. Either way, I think we're both just speculating here, now. Neither of us is a historical oral Chinese linguist. Overall, good sourcing on your points, though.

BTR - What's interesting about the stone heads looking SE Asian, is that stone heads and temples were very popular there, as well. Compare:
http://www.crystalinks.com/olmecarthead.jpghttp://www.crystalinks.com/olmechead3.jpg
http://micahwright.com/olmec/heads/Monument01v.jpg
http://www.photomann.com/cambodia/ang4x.jpghttp://images.oneofakindantiques.com/3083_hand_carved_stone_figurine_1.jpg
Honestly, that's almost a direct match. Crescent eyes encircled by lids, brow structure, wide nose, ducklips, "helmet." Of course, I have not done exhaustive research and tried to match dates and stuff, but that's what I found right-off-the-bat.

Now, personally, I am putting more stock in the Incas from Miao than Mongols. The latter seems to more random coffeehouse speculation without any real evidence in Mesoamerica to support it. Now this makeshift SE Asian "stone head" connection is also an intriguing possibility - and probably worth some researchers exploring IMO.

A.R.A.M. - I wasn't saying you said the Afrocentrists distorted the Olmec characters - that's MY opinion based upon comparing their rough pencil sketches with the actual photos. I mean, the evidence is right there for anyone to see. There's some pretty glaring discrepancies and obviously the photos are more accurate than their crude hand drawings. And, they actually SIMPLIFIED some of them like "guan," so you can't blame that on their recognizance of additional "faint markings." The photos are pretty good, btw - and anything much fainter than what is easily visible there would more likely be unintentional scratches than intentional markings.

I'm not really going to comment on the Afrocentric interpretation though until I read up on it. But again, even if there was some African influence - I've also read that they claim there were "Black Shang" - so a connection would still be there - just with another leg now.

So, have any Olmec artifacts been found on the Pacific side? Again, we must remember that very few artifacts have been found, period - and maybe the western part is more heavily-jungled (or more populated?) and less excavated? Lack of finds does not mean lack of existance. Also note that the Olmecs were in the thinnest part of Mexico - so it is also possible they could have landed ashore on the west side and then gradually migrated eastward. A long shot would be that they took the African route across the Atlantic, but I think gradually portaging inland from the Pacific coast would be more believable.
http://www.crystalinks.com/olmecmap.jpg
I think Miao usage of knots would only be icing on the cake. Any sources for that? But, I think their traditional dress is STRIKINGLY similar - as witnessed in the pics I posted. That alone is pretty hard to completely write off as totally coincidental, dontcha think?

SunWuKong

09-10-2004, 09:00 AM

But, I think their traditional dress is STRIKINGLY similar - as witnessed in the pics I posted. That alone is pretty hard to completely write off as totally coincidental, dontcha think?

actually, i disagree. in fact they look nothing alike.

Miao:
http://www.tribaltextiles.info/Assets/images/China/Chang_Tion/0010w14E.jpg
http://www.tribaltextiles.info/Galleries/Chang_Tion.htm

Incan:
http://www.inkas.com/tours/jpg_files/jpg_photos/cuzco_machu_picchu/varayocs.jpg
http://www.inkas.com/tours/jpg_files/jpg_photos/cuzco_machu_picchu

kuilong - Yes, the "quecHUA" similarity could be entirely coincidental. That was just an incidental possibility I saw. As far as your phonetic probabilities, well that could apply to the Incan town names I suppose, but not the Olmec written ideograms.

actually, there's a good chance similarities arose separately from each other because the written languages are based on ideograms. according to the site you linked:

Professor David Grove of the University of Illinois has commented that there are indeed many points of similarity between the Olmec and Shang cultures, but that this does not mean that the two were in contact. It is the same as the way "a whale looks like a fish, but in fact is a mammal." And pictographic writing systems are the result of past people's observation of the natural world. The moon and the sun as seen by different peoples are probably pretty much the same.

http://www.taiwaninfo.org/info/sinorama/en/8605/605006e5.html

A.R.A.M.

09-10-2004, 12:31 PM

Krome,

You said: "^ Yes, that Afrocentric link was posted earlier. But they also claim there were Black Shang* as well - so even by their theories there would still be an Olmec/Shang connection. I've not really delved into all that - but it has already been noted in this thread that there translations were based off inaccurate sketches - not the actual celts or photos of them like Dr. Mike Xu used. Go back to page 2 and read about that."

I understood your sayng that the "translations were based off innaccurate sketches - not the actual celts or photos" to be a reference to my post in which I granted you that they were possibly innaccurate. Now I realize that you are simply referring back to an earlier post of yours in which you declared them innaccurate.

I have offered the Manding origins of the Olmec script as a counterweight to the Shang theory. I don't wholeheartedly support it, and there is evidence that it is not the perfect theory. But more on that below. Here I will defend, yet again, the integrity of those who have advocated the Manding theory. Regarding their use of a piss-poor drawing: I personally find it hard to believe that scholars who adhere to the theory of African origins of the Olmec script have never seen the actual celts. This theory has been around for a long time. They were probably among the first scholars to examine the actual celts. It is unlikely that only one scholar saw it, drew a picture on a napkin, and circulated that reproduction around the academic community. Regarding Xu's photograph: I can just barely make out some of the fainter markings surrounding the first alledged character "bu." It may be that they are more readily apparent upon closer inspection of the actual celt itself. This is certainly no less plausible than some of the leaps you have been making to argue your case.

Regarding the evil, monolithic Afrocentric cabal bent on undermining the glories of China's accomplishments: the authors of the paper do not connect their theory of the Manding origins of the Olmec script with the theory of the "black Shang." The article refers to the settlers around the Gulf of Mexico as being black, but it does not address anything related to the "black Shang" or anything related to China at all. Not all scholars who adopt an Afrocentric approach support everything that other scholars using a similar approach argue. Your argument about that these scholars can't be trusted because they make outlandish claims in some other area holds no water until you show me where they say that they advocate the African origins of the Shang. But then again, you claim that you haven't even read the article yet, so how would you know what they said?

Regarding the deciphering of the Olmec script: these celts are not the only examples of Olmec writings; other samples from other areas in other circumstances have been found. And these scholars, using the Manding script as a key, have been able to decipher some of those texts. Can Xu claim to have deciphered other samples of Olmec writing using the Shang script as a key? I don't think he has. He is looking at one sample and says, "Ohh! That character looks like 'guan' and that one like 'qiu.' How nifty!" I will not be convinced of the Shang origin of the Olmec script until he--or someone else--translates more than a character here, a character there from more than one sample of the Olmec script.

But you are absolutely right: the Manding origins of the Olmec script may be completely wrong. And it seems that there are some Olmec writings that the Manding theory simply cannot account for, such as La Mojarra Stela discovered in 1986. But then again, Xu doesn't even bother with this stela either. Here is another theory about the origins of the Olmec script:

http://www.usu.edu/anthro/origins_of_writing/olmec_writing/

This scholar calls the evidence for the Afrocentric theory of the Manding origins of the Olmec script "sketchy" Indeed, they think that all external origins of the Olmec script are most likely "fairy tales." If you are only seeking confirmation that it was indeed Shang settlers who were responsible for the creation of the Olmec script, don't read this page. But if you want to see yet another point of view on the Olmec script, then check it out. The author advocates an indigenous origin of the Olmec script. Indeed, she sees the Olmec script evolving rather than just suddenly appearing. The Shang theory is not the sole explanation out there.

As for the other similarities you have noted, perhaps it is time to heed SWK's suggestion that we also look at the differences between the Olmec and the Shang.

kuilong

09-10-2004, 04:24 PM

kuilong - Yes, the "quecHUA" similarity could be entirely coincidental.

Remember how I said to pronounce it as if it was Spanish? Quechua is pronounced [ki?wa] (Quechua has a classic trivowel system). The fact that it has <hua> in it is simply an accident of orthography -- there is no [hwa] sound.

And as I pointed out, surface similarities (as in a lot of similar sounding words) do not a language relationship make. I think I've talked about the comparitive method here before.

As far as your phonetic probabilities, well that could apply to the Incan town names I suppose, but not the Olmec written ideograms.

Well, as SunWuKong pointed out, it may well apply there as well. Without having compared ideographic scripts, how can you tell how likely their "glyph-spaces" are to overlap? As I said, humans are lousy at probability; we're built to detect patterns even in randomness.

As far as morphing pronounciations, I wasn't aware that English had changed so much. You sure about that? I mean, what the h*ll is "thezhzhm?" But regardless, I'm not sure how much Chinese changed. It's not alphabet-based and every word is monosyllabic. That could make it more stable. Or not. I dunno. Either way, I think we're both just speculating here, now. Neither of us is a historical oral Chinese linguist. Overall, good sourcing on your points, though.

Yeah, have you ever tried reading Beowulf (http://alliteration.net/beoIndex.htm)? Or even Chaucer, from only 600 years ago? Languages change very quickly. As for the influence of scripts, while written languages are usually more conservative, there's no evidence that languages with ideographic scripts are more so. For instance, during the Qin dynasty, Chinese was probably an inflecting language (like Latin), but since then, its morphology has simplified drastically.

Mandarin, especially, is very different from the language spoken during the 12th century. Around that time, Middle Chinese was evolving into Proto-Mandarin, and losing its final stops, reorganizing the tone system (Middle Chinese is classically held to have had 9 tones), etc. Going by rime tables like the Jiyun, late Middle Chinese also had a radically different phonology, with [f] and [v] which are today only preserved in Shanghainese. Meanwhile, Proto-Yue was losing the Middle Chinese diphthongs. To give you an idea of how different Middle Chinese was to Mandarin, remember that Middle Chinese is the common ancestor of Mandarin, Cantonese and Hakka.

Unfortunately, I don't know much about historical Chinese phonology (I mostly do grammar, not diachronic linguistics). But if you want more information, I know some people who'd know about this stuff.

Mr.Lum

09-10-2004, 06:02 PM

actually, i disagree. in fact they look nothing alike.

Miao:
http://www.tribaltextiles.info/Assets/images/China/Chang_Tion/0010w14E.jpg
http://www.tribaltextiles.info/Galleries/Chang_Tion.htm

Incan:
http://www.inkas.com/tours/jpg_files/jpg_photos/cuzco_machu_picchu/varayocs.jpg
http://www.inkas.com/tours/jpg_files/jpg_photos/cuzco_machu_picchu

They look like gnomes.

A.R.A.M.

09-10-2004, 08:46 PM

A.R.A.M. - I wasn't saying you said the Afrocentrists distorted the Olmec characters - that's MY opinion based upon comparing their rough pencil sketches with the actual photos. I mean, the evidence is right there for anyone to see. There's some pretty glaring discrepancies and obviously the photos are more accurate than their crude hand drawings. And, they actually SIMPLIFIED some of them like "guan," so you can't blame that on their recognizance of additional "faint markings." The photos are pretty good, btw - and anything much fainter than what is easily visible there would more likely be unintentional scratches than intentional markings.

I'm not really going to comment on the Afrocentric interpretation though until I read up on it. But again, even if there was some African influence - I've also read that they claim there were "Black Shang" - so a connection would still be there - just with another leg now.

So, have any Olmec artifacts been found on the Pacific side? Again, we must remember that very few artifacts have been found, period - and maybe the western part is more heavily-jungled (or more populated?) and less excavated? Lack of finds does not mean lack of existance. Also note that the Olmecs were in the thinnest part of Mexico - so it is also possible they could have landed ashore on the west side and then gradually migrated eastward. A long shot would be that they took the African route across the Atlantic, but I think gradually portaging inland from the Pacific coast would be more believable.
http://www.crystalinks.com/olmecmap.jpg
I think Miao usage of knots would only be icing on the cake. Any sources for that? But, I think their traditional dress is STRIKINGLY similar - as witnessed in the pics I posted. That alone is pretty hard to completely write off as totally coincidental, dontcha think?

Here is a NY Times article on Incan knots:

http://www.nytimes.com/2003/08/12/science/12INCA.html?ex=1376020800&en=b4db93eb197878b3&ei=5007&partner=USERLAND

What I've learned about the use of knots as memnomic devices in China came from one or two essays in the volume "Cultural Encounters on China's Ethnic Frontiers," edited by Steve Harrell. Harrel argues that it is a literary device used by Chinese scholars, past and present, to depict the non-Han peoples as less culturally advanced than the Han. Harrell's introduction discusses this under the section "Indigenous people as ancestors." I don't know if that is the correct sub-heading because it's been a while since I've read the book. One other author in the book mentions a recent Chinese scholar who falsely stated that some group still uses knots to illustrate how primitive they are to the Han reading public when, in fact, they have never used knots in such a fashion. So I guess the upshot is, I have absolutely NO sources that the MIAO used knots.

As for artifacts being found on the Pacific coast, I don't know. I haven't read about anything being found there. Certainly the major cult sites were on the Eastern side, along the Gulf of Mexico. That part of Mexico is only about 200 miles long so it's possible that they landed first along the Pacific coast and slowly migrated to the Gulf. But we can't say they did for sure either. Perhaps in a few decades when the Pacific side of Mexico has been more fully documented we will know more. But for now, the Shang theory is simply a long chain of what-ifs strung together. To many people, the more what-ifs that depend on previous what-ifs being true that in turn depend on still more prior what-ifs being true makes a theory very difficult to accept. But it's a chain of what-ifs that is very intriguing, I'll grant you that.

BeTheReds

09-12-2004, 08:01 PM

BTR - MANY people are orally literate, but cannot READ OR WRITE. You see this even in America today. H*ll, I can speak Mandarin choppily, but can barely read or write it. Hence, some words could have been transmitted down (naming towns), but no real complete written language.

C'mon man. Some NOGGINS! PLEASE!

Not to beat a dead horse, but if the mongols were the ones who created the inca civ, wouldn't the inca language have been linguistically very similar to whatever language they spoke, despite your assumed lack of no one being able read or write in a whole armada and army aboard their invasion fleet?

BTR - What's interesting about the stone heads looking SE Asian, is that stone heads and temples were very popular there, as well. Compare:
http://www.crystalinks.com/olmecarthead.jpghttp://www.crystalinks.com/olmechead3.jpg
http://micahwright.com/olmec/heads/Monument01v.jpg
http://www.photomann.com/cambodia/ang4x.jpghttp://images.oneofakindantiques.com/3083_hand_carved_stone_figurine_1.jpg
Honestly, that's almost a direct match. Crescent eyes encircled by lids, brow structure, wide nose, ducklips, "helmet."

I don't see a perfect match at all. For one thing, the Asian pic you put up is made out of small bricks put together, while olmecs built theirs out of a giant stone. Next, there isn't anything similar about their facial structure other than it is intended to look human. The olmec has lips that are fatter, his eyes are much rounder. And face it, helmet doesn't tell us anything about phenotypical similarities.

Of course, I have not done exhaustive research and tried to match dates and stuff, but that's what I found right-off-the-bat.

That's very dangerous then, that you'll just look at two unrelated statues and find some traits that seem to be similar enough to you. Anyway Ankor Wat was built by the Cambodians, not the Shang, and even if I grant to you that the statues more or less look similar, why then aren't there any brick statues like that bult by the Olmec, and why aren't there gigantic 40 ton heads made of one stone in cambodia? I don't think there is a link.