Pre-Columbian Murals and Norse Sagas Suggest Vikings Met the Aztecs, and the Outcome Was Not Pretty

Pre-Columbian Murals and Norse Sagas Suggest Vikings Met the Aztecs, and the Outcome Was Not Pretty

(Read the article on one page)

Did the Vikings visit Pre-Columbian Mexico? The depiction of white people on Chichen Itza murals in the Temple of the Warriors probably represent Vikings - the major European navigators around the time this temple was built. This suggests the tradition of the “White Lords” who had visited Mexico before the Spanish were the Vikings.

Norse Sagas Discussing Voyages that May Have Landed in Mexico

Hans Ebeling published the book ‘Die Reise in die Vergangenheit III. Die Europäer gewinnen den Erdball. Geschichte der Neuzeit bis’, in 1789. In his text, Ebeling talked about how Moctezuma II welcomed Hernán Cortés as Quetzalcoatl. Guðrún Guðmundsdóttir and Björn Thorsteinsson translated Ebeling’s book into Icelandic. They discussed the Eyrbggia saga in the epilogue. This saga mentions two possible Vikings who may have sailed to the Yucatan region of Mexico - Gudleif Gudlaugson (c.1025 AD) and Björn Breiðvíkingakappi (c.965).

Guðmundsdóttir and Thorsteinsson claim that the Eyrbyggja saga describes how Björn Breiðvíkingakappi (Björn the champion of the Broadwickers) sailed around Ireland and landed in Mexico.

Drawing of Norsemen in a ship by Oscar Wergeland.

Drawing of Norsemen in a ship by Oscar Wergeland. (Public Domain)

There are also three traditions of the Norse Sagas that mention that in 965 or 986 Ari Marson set sail from Ireland in an attempt to reach Greenland. The story has it that Marson’s ship ran into rough seas and a storm threw him off course. Within six days he had reached Mexico instead. The Eyrbggia saga and the voyage of Ari Marson may explain how the first white people got to the Yucatan.

Mural in the Temple of the Warriors, Chichen Itza, Mexico. The image shows light-skinned men as they pack to retreat by sea, while others defend a village or are taken away as prisoners.

Mural in the Temple of the Warriors, Chichen Itza, Mexico. The image shows light-skinned men as they pack to retreat by sea, while others defend a village or are taken away as prisoners. (The Plumed Conch)

The White Lords’ Return

Many researchers claimed that tens of thousands of indigenous peoples helped Hernán Cortés conqueror the Mexica (Aztecs) in 1519. They formed a confederation of a number of disparate peoples who wanted to throw off the Aztec yoke.

Some researchers claim that the tribes joined the conquistadors’ in defeating the Aztecs because they represented a return of the “white lords”. However, most researchers say that this story about “white lords” was a myth created during the Spanish conquest. Restall wrote that: “The legend of the returning lords, originated during the Spanish-Mexica war in Cortés' reworking of Moctezuma's welcome speech, had by the 1550's merged with the Cortés-as-Quetzalcoatl legend that the Franciscans had started spreading in the 1530s.”

Codex Azcatitlan page depicting the Spanish army, with Hernán Cortés and Malinche in front.

Codex Azcatitlan page depicting the Spanish army, with Hernán Cortés and Malinche in front. (Public Domain)

But this story of “white lords” in Pre-Columbian Mexico may make sense. The Temple of the Warriors in Chichen Itza suggests that Europeans had visited Mexico between 600-900 AD. Murals in the temple depict black, white, and brown people. In some of these murals one can see whites fighting and in bondage to blacks.

White prisoners in bondage to blacks.

White prisoners in bondage to blacks. (In the Cavity of a Rock)

The Complex Dance of the Giants

In Esotericism of the Popol Vuh by Raphael Girard, one reads about the ‘Dance of the Giants’. This Mayan dance appears to represent a Pre-Columbian conflict between white and black people in Mexico.

This book is quite illuminating. In it, Girard discusses the Dance of the Black Giants. The dance of the Black Giants explains the reason why the other indigenous peoples joined the Spanish in destroying the Aztec nation. Girard's description of the Dance of the Giants is startling. He wrote:

“In the following episode, Apparition, the vicissitudes undergone by the White Giant, who has fallen into the hands of his rival, are mimed. The Black Giant "intimidates" his opponent by beating the ground furiously with his sword while he makes menacing gestures and movements in hopes of touching or wounding the White Giant, who defends himself as best he can by trying to evade and riposte the thrusts. The battle is suspended at intervals while the giants pay homage to the sun, but is then immediately resumed with greater fury. During the whole episode the Black Giant maintains a menacing stance, not only toward his rival but also toward the large audience witnessing the spectacle. Both actors watch each other constantly, trying to take advantage of the smallest error of the other. For whole minutes they are motionless like statues, then cautiously cross swords as they dart glances around in all directions as if fearing some invisible danger. Then they come to grips and each places the point of his sword against his opponent's neck, a tragic pose that lasts but an instant. Finally the Black Giant succeeds in decapitating the White Giant "because his power is greater," an episode that for the Chortí represents the moment "when our Lord was suffering under the dominion of the bad spirit.”

The defeat of the white giant by the black giant is not the end of the dance. In the Dance of the Giants a white person called Gavite returns to Mexico and helps the indigenous peoples defeat the black giants. Girard explains:

“Finally, Gavite decapitates the Black Giant and takes away his sword, after the giant humbly says to him: "Rest a moment, child, and I will give you your payment, because I now yield myself, and even my heart trembles." He acknowledges himself vanquished and a tribute-payer to Gavite from thenceforward. But the hero-god replies: "There is no rest now, boastful giant, because we are beginning the end of the labor [hornada]." We note here for the reader's better understanding that the word hornada means task, act, or ceremony, and is a term frequently employed by Chortí elders in that sense.”

Scene from the traditional ‘Dance of the Giants’ showing Gavite and the Black Giant, amongst other characters.

Scene from the traditional ‘Dance of the Giants’ showing Gavite and the Black Giant, amongst other characters. (Theosophical University Press Online Edition)

Girard continues the tale:

“There is no discrepancy between the Chortí and the Quiché sources regarding the manner of killing the chief of the infernal forces. Gavite cuts off his head, just as Hunahpú did that of Hun Camé in the Popol Vuh: "The first to be cut off was the head of the one called Hun Camé, the great Lord of Xibalbá." Offering the Black Giant's head and sword as trophies to the King and Captain, Gavite says: "Here I bring you the head of this giant, with a blade of steel from my sling, from my battle. It will overcome the whole world, since if you do not subdue it, it will be your subduer.”

The Chichen Itza mural indicates that the indigenous peoples had sided with the blacks when the whites first attempted to invade Mexico. However, it later appears that they felt the ‘black giants’ were arrogant and boastful and they wanted to overthrow them – even though they originally had helped defeat the Vikings.

The Dance of the Giants probably represents the fight between the whites and blacks for power. The whites lost the first battle (as depicted in the murals at Chichen Itza) but the Maya people were used as pawns by the blacks to defeat the whites. In one of the murals one can see a blond-haired man being sacrificed by two black men.

A part of a mural showing a blond-haired man being sacrificed by two black men.

A part of a mural showing a blond-haired man being sacrificed by two black men. (In the Cavity of a Rock)

Describing the Aztecs

Although many of the Indigenous peoples sided with the blacks in their battle against the white invaders in Pre-Columbian times, by the time the Spanish arrived in Mexico the black rulers, namely the Aztecs, were mistreating the other groups of Indigenous peoples.

The Spanish described the Aztecs as follows: “The people of this land are well made, rather tall than short. They are swarthy as leopards, of good manners and gestures, for the greater part very skillful, robust, and tireless, and at the same time the most moderate men known. They are very warlike and face death with the greatest resolution.”

Folio 65r of the Codex Mendoza, a mid-16th century Aztec codex.

Folio 65r of the Codex Mendoza, a mid-16th century Aztec codex. (Public Domain)

Archaeological evidence, Mayan and Spanish descriptions, and pictorial evidence from the codices indicate the Aztecs may have been black people. This would not be surprising because the Paleo-Americans Luzia and Naia were also black.

In addition to the Spanish describing the Aztecs as black ‘like leopards and jaguars.’ The Mayas called the Aztecs xilaan “curly or frizzy hair”, which is characteristic of Sub-Saharan Africans. Furthermore, one can find Black/Negro/African people in the Mexican codices, including the Codex Telleriano and Codex Mendoza.

Detail of page 30 of the Codex Borbonicus.

Detail of page 30 of the Codex Borbonicus. (FAMSI)

Connecting the Dots

In summary, it would appear that the character named Gavite in the Dance of the Giants represents the Spanish. The blacks defeated by Gavite were the Aztecs, who were identified by the Maya and Spanish as black and were represented in the codices as a horrible people who mistreated the other local tribes.

The whites who landed at Chichen Itza were Vikings. The Vikings were well-known navigators that sailed to many nations in Europe, including Great Britain. They may have been sailing in the Atlantic and were mislaid by a storm until they reached Mexico.

As Dennis Tedlock notes in Popol Vuh: The Mayan Book of the Dawn of Life: “They didn’t know where they were going. They did this for a long time, when they were there in the grasslands: the black people, the white people, people of many faces, people of many languages, uncertain there at the edge of the sky” (pp.149-150). This mention of whites and blacks in the Popol Vuh supports the diverse populations depicted in the Chichen Itza murals.

A mural from the Chichen Itza Temple of the Warriors.

A mural from the Chichen Itza Temple of the Warriors. (Copyleft)

Top Image: Detail of a mural from Chichen Itza’s Temple of the Warriors. Source: Celticnz

By Clyde Winters

References:

Raphael Girard, Esotericism of the Popol Vuh, Chapter 15. http://www.theosociety.org/pasadena/popolvuh/pv-hp.htm

Restall, Matthew (2003). Seven Myths of the Spanish Conquest. Oxford and New York: Oxford University Press.

POPOL VUH: THE MAYAN BOOK OF THE DAWN OF LIFE, translated by Dennis Tedlock. http://www.abualsoof.com/inp/upload/pdf/THE%20MAYAN%20BOOK%20OF%20THE%20DAWN%20OF%20LIFE.pdf

Þórunn Valdimarsdóttir, Vikings in Mexico 998 AD?  http://thorvald.is/?page_id=392

Comments

Now this is a clash of cultures I'd like to see on screen. Both interesting and such contrast between the two.

No...

Viking Age 789-1071

Aztec Empire 1428–1521

Unless Vikings travel through time, never happened.

The fact that what we call the Aztec empire only existed between the dates you stated is at best nit picking and in my opinion actually completely irrelevant. The people and groups that formed that empire and their culture existed long before those dates.

Unless you are suggesting that in 1427 these people, their culture and their history didn't exist and then in 1428 they magically appeared out of thin air with an empire.

Yes...

You are discussing age and empires - which is a dishonest or ignorant answer. You are trying to make the case that these peoples ONLY existed during their age and empire.

Simply not true.

The timeframe you gave for the Aztecs Empire is for just that....their empire, not their existence. That time period is for when they dominated. The Aztecs are Nahua peoples who migrated south into the region in the 6th century. So the Aztecs have technically been there since the 6th century. At least 100 years before the Viking AGE.

The Viking Age is a time period when Vikings were most active, not the time period when they existed.

Maybe, try not to be so eager to be snarky an arrogant next time.

No, he's actually right - not only that the Aztecs could not meet the Vikings (because of the time periods), these paintings aren't Aztec either. Chichen Itzá is a MAYAN city, not Aztec! And not only that - the temple was built about 1200 AD, so pretty long after the end of the Viking age. OK, they existed later too, but the times of those great expetidion were long gone - but let's put that aside, because:

The largest argument against that the painting represents Vikings captured by Mayans is the style of the depiction itself - the Vikings, European in origin (as you all know), would have been an absolutely fascinating sight for the Mayans and the depictions would feature that - beards, blond hair (at least by some of them), strange clothes, weapons and maybe even some heavy stylized horses would have been there, but no - there are just captured people with (peculiarly) un-European hairstyles, faces and ear shapes. Just remember how the Japanese depicted the first Portuguese and other Europeans they saw - almost ape like. Wouldn't the Mayans do something similar? The ships have no masts and sails either. You could argue that this is a depiction of an older conflict that none of the artists remembered personally - so wouldn't the depicted "enemies" be even more stylized? A drakkar or knarr would become a dragon or giant snake on the water, a Viking with metal sword and mail armour a monster. And here we see just some captured naked people - most likely just other native tribes or people from a village of another Mayan city state.

The only reason someone identifies those men as Vikings is their colour. That's nonsense! By that logic, the Mayan warriors should be brownish, not black! And Vikings weren’t red striped either! There are even Mayas depicted as white. What you see here, is just a method of either distinction of the warring parties (we are black, they are striped and those behind the corner would be blue or so), of different clothes or battle paints.

Just use logic...

Clyde Winters's picture

The whites depicted on the monument are interesting, especially the blond hair man placed on the sacrificial altar. Another interesting thing about the Vikings depicted in this monument is the hair style that appears to be braids or spiked. They recently found Viking coins from Ireland that shows that some Vikings braided their hair. This feature would correspond to the whites in the mural who appear to have braids tied on top of their heads, or hanging from their heads. See coins with Vikings wearing braids @: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-3971912/How-did-Two-rare-Viking-coins-Northern-Ireland-time.html   

Look at the righthand side of the mural. You will find what looks like four men attacking a temple. These men appear to have Viking garb. Three of the men appear to have beards and in their hands are weapons that appear to be axes. The hat on the heads of the men on top of the temple appear to have two horns?? One of the men on the lower level of the temple  on the righthand side appears to be wearing a helmet.

Oh yes, I'm sure that persons who captured, tortured and executed their naked prisoners were VERY careful not to disturb their cultural hairdos.They probably even provided barbers to get them looking good before their hearts were ripped out of their living chests.....

This may come as a surprise to you but, braids and spiked hair aka "Mohawks" are common Native American hairstyles. I see no "Viking garb" on any of the 4 men and their "beards" are simply their warrior cowls pulled back. The "axes" you see are typical Mesoamerican war clubs. BTW, the Viking helmet NEVER bore horns. That is a romantic fantasy from 19th century European painters. Oh, and Maya warriors wore skullcaps and or helmets. I have said this before and I'll say it again, there is absolutely no evidence of Africans before the 17th century or Europeans in the Americas before the tenth century.

Clyde Winters's picture

You don’t know what you’re talking about.

This article is not about Blacks in Mexico. There is no way you can claim that there were no Black Native Americans before 1492, because even the Spanish said the first Indians they met were Black  people like the Africans and people of South Indian. Neither genetic evidence nor craniometrics deny the existence of Black Native Americans. The Native Americans were called Indians because they were Black skinned like the Natives of South India.

      Alcina-Franch  made it clear that the Spanish left us mention of many Sub-Saharan Communities in Central  America and Mexico . These dark skinned Indians were Africans not mongoloid Indians.  Paul Gaffarel noted  that when Balboa reached America he found "negre veritables" or true Blacks(12). Balboa noted "...Indian traditions of Mexico and Central America indicate that Negroes were among the first occupants of that territory” ."

In addition, eyewitness accounts of SSA populations in the Caribbean, and Mexico  anthropologists have found SSA skeletons at Pre-Columbian sites . Moore, Wailoo, and Whittington  report that ancient Mayan skeletal remains indicate that they suffered from sickle cell anemia an illness associated with Sub-Saharan Africans . The presence of sickle cell anemia  among the ancient Maya, supports Quatrefages claim that the Chontal Maya were Africans . Winters has shown the Manding, an African language, as a  substratum in Mayan languages.

 Craniometric quantitative analysis and multivariate methods have determined the Native American populations. This research indicated that the ancient Americans represent two populations, paleoamericans who were phenotypically African, Australian or Melanesian and a mongoloid population that appears to have arrived in the Americas after 6000 BC.

The determination of the Paleoamericans as members of the Black Variety is not a new phenomena. Howells (1973, 1989, 1995) using multivariate analyses, determined that the Easter Island population was characterized as Australo-Melanesian, while other skeletons from South America were found to be related to Africans and Australians (Coon, 1962; Dixon, 2001; Howell, 1989, 1995; Lahr, 1996). The African-Australo-Melanesian morphology was widespread in North and South America. For example skeletal remains belonging to the Black Variety have been found in Brazil (Neves, Powell, Prous and Ozolins, 1998; Neves et al., 1998), Columbian Highlands (Neves et al., 1995; Powell, 2005), Mexico (Gonza’lez-Jose, 2012), Florida (Howells, 1995), and Southern Patazonia (Neves et al., 1999a, 1999b).

We don’t have to depend on just paintings to acknowledge the Negro/African presence in America before 1492, we also have the facial reconstructions of paleoAmericans that have resulted from craniometrics that show these people were Blacks. The bioanthropologist Walter Neves’s reconstruction of the first Americans evidenced Negroid features for the Paleoamerican we call Luzia. What made this finding startling was that Neves using the mahalanobis distance and principal component analysis, found that 75 other skulls from Lagos Santa, were also phenotypically African or Australian (Neves et al., 2004).So stop trying to claim there were no Blacks in America before 1492, Blacks had been in America 94,000 years according to Dr. Nieda Guidon   before the mongloid Native Americans found in America today arrived in the United States 6000 years ago.

There is genetic and ethnographic evidence that some of the Maya were Blacks. The Mayan speaking Mexicans include Black Mexicans who were probably decendants of the Paleoamericans. According to Quatrefages in The Human Species,  the Black tribes  of Mexicans include the  Othomi (Otomi), and Tzendal/Chontal. Arnaiz-Villena  and Winters have discussed the genetic evidence of Indigenous Mexican-African admixture that  is compelling. The frequency of HLA B*35 at 45% is highest among the Maya.  We also find that the YAP+ associated with AàG transition at DYS271 and 9bp also has a high frequency among the Maya, all these markers are associated with African ancestry. This is  not surprising because Quatrefages  classified the Chontal Maya as Black Native Americans  (3,7,11) , and  sickle cell anemia is found among ancient Mayan skeletons.The R haplogroup is carried by Mexicans. The frequency of hg R varies from Tarahumara (5.6%), Otomi (14.3%), Yucateca Maya (10.5%). There is also a high frequency of haplogroup R among the Ch’ol and Chontal which stood around 15% . The most pristine form of R-M173 is carried by Africans.   The haplogroup R-M173 is not found in Siberia..  The Ch’ol and Chontal also carry E1b1b . The fact that Neves discovered the Paleoamericans were Black, makes it clear that the ancestors of the Aztecs and Chontal may be descendants of this Mexican population.

 

References:

 

1.Alcina-Franch J.(1985). Los orígenes de America. : Editorial  Alhambra.

2. Arnaiz-Villena,A, Moscoso, J.,Serrano-Vela,I. (2006).The uniqueness of Amerindians according to HLA genes and the peopling of the Americas. http://www.inmunologia.org/Upload/Articles/6/7/678.pdf

Coon CS (1962). The Origin of Races (New York: Knopf).

Dixon EJ (2001). Human colonization of the Americas: timing, chronology and process. Quaternary Science Review 20 277–99.

Gonza´lez-Jose´ R, Hernande´z M, Neves WA, Pucciarelli HM and Correal G (2002). Cra´neos del Pleistoceno tardio-Holoceno tempramo de Me´xico en relacio´n al patro´n morfolo´gico paleoamericano. Paper presented at the 7th Congress of the Latin American Association of Biological Anthropology, Mexico City.

Howells WW (1973). Cranial Variation in Man: A Study by Multivariate Analysis of Patterns of Difference among Recent Human Populations, Papers of the Peabody Museum of Archaeology and Ethnology (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University) 67.

Howells WW (1989). Skull Shapes and the Map: Craniometric Analyses in the Dispersion of Modern Homo, Papers of the Peabody Museum of Archaeology and Ethnology (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University) 79. Early Holocene human skeletal remains from Cerca Grande 497

Howells WW (1995). Who’s Who in Skulls: Ethnic Identification of Crania from Measurments, Papers of the Peabody Museum of Archaeology and Ethnology (Cambridge. MA: Harvard University) 82.

Moore,S. (1929). The Bone Change in Sickle Cell Anemia with A Note on Similar Changes Observed in Skulls of Ancient Mayan Indians, Journal  of Missouri Medical Association, 26:561

Neves WA and Hubbe M (2005). Cranial morphology of early Americans from Lagoa Santa, Brazil: Implications for the settlement of the New World. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 102(18) 309–18, 314.

Neves WA and Meyer D (1993). The contribution of the morphology of early South and Northamerican skeletal remains to the understanding of the peopling of the Americas. American Journal of Physical Anthropology 16(Suppl) 150–1.

Neves WA and Pucciarelli HM (1989). Extra-continental biological relationships of early South American human remains: a multivariate analysis. Cieˆncia e Cultura 41 566–75.

Neves WA and Pucciarelli HM (1990). The origins of the first Americans: an analysis based onthe cranial morphology of early South American human remains. American Journal of Physical Anthropology 81 247.

Neves WA and Pucciarelli HM (1991). Morphological affinities of the first Americans: an exploratory analysis based on early South American human remains. Journal of Human Evolution 21 261–73.

Neves WA and Pucciarelli HM (1991). Morphological Affinities of the First Americans: an exploratory analysis based on early South American human remains. Journal of Human Evolution 21 261-273.

Neves WA, Gonza´ lez-Jose´ R, Hubbe M, Kipnis R, Araujo AGM and Blasi O (2004). Early Holocene Human Skeletal Remains form Cerca Grande, Lagoa Santa, Central Brazil, and the origins of the first Americans. World Archaeology 36 479-501.

Neves WA, Powell JF and Ozolins EG (1999). Extra-continental morphological affinities of Lapa Vermelha IV Hominid 1: A multivariate analysis with progressive numbers of variables. Homo 50 263-268.

Neves WA, Powell JF and Ozolins EG (1999). Extra-continental morphological affinities of Palli-Aike, Southern Chile. Interciencia 24 258-263, Available: http://www.interciencia.org/v24_04/neves.pdf

Neves WA, Powell JF and Ozolins EG (1999a). Extra-continental morphological affinities of Palli Aike, southern Chile. Interciencia 24 258–63.

Neves WA, Powell JF and Ozolins EG (1999b). Modern human origins as seen from the peripheries. Journal of Human Evolution 37 129–33.

Neves WA, Powell JF, Prous A and Ozolins EG (1998). Lapa Vermelha IV Hominid 1: morphologial affinities or the earliest known American. American Journal of Physical Anthropology 26(Suppl) 169.

Quatrefages, A de.(1889) . Introduction a L’Etudes des Races Humaines.

Wailoo, Keith. (2002). Drawing Blood: Technology and Disease Identity in Twentieth-Century America. JHU Press.

Whittington, S. L., & Reed, D. M. (1997). Bones of the Maya: Studies of ancient skeletons. Washington, D.C: Smithonian Institution Press.

Winters,C. ( 2011 ). Olmec (Mande) Loan Words in the Mayan, Mixe-Zoque and Taino Languages. Current Research Journal of Social Sciences 3(3): 152-179.

 Winters,C. (2011a). Comment: Genetic Evidence of Early Migrations into America.  Retrived 2/18/2015: http://www.plosone.org/annotation/listThread.action?root=18395

 Winters,C. (2014) HLA-B*35 in Mexican Amerindians and African Populations. Forthcoming:  Indian J Fundamental and Applied Life Scieces.

Winters C. (2011b). Is Native American R Y-Chromosome of African Origin?. Current Research Journal of Biological Sciences 3(6): 555-558, 2011.

 

And yet...MtDNA and YDNA haplogroup studies prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that you just wasted your time writing all of the above. Simply put, Africans belong to completely different Haplogroups than Native Americans. Africans cluster quite nicely with Southern Europeans, Anatolians and Western Asians but have ABSOLUTELY NO GENETIC OVERLAP with Native American Haplogroups. Know who Native Americans Cluster with really well? Eastern most Siberians like the Chukchi. You can spout about who the Spanish THOUGHT Native Americans looked like. You can make wild claims like the Spanish thought they looked like the people from India so they called them Indians (Fact: the Spanish thought the New World WAS India. THAT's why they called them Indians). You can talk about Crainometrics all you like BUT, you can NOT get around the simple genetic FACT that Africans and Native Americans are simply not closely related.
Maybe this will help you to understand:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haplogroup

Clyde Winters's picture

Stop reading just one website and do actual research. If you did the research you would know that there is genetic and ethnographic evidence that some of the Mexicans were Blacks. The Mayan speaking Mexicans include Black Mexicans who were probably decendants of the Paleoamericans. According to Quatrefages in The Human Species,  the Black tribes  of Mexico include the  Othomi (Otomi), and Tzendal/Chontal. Arnaiz-Villena  and Winters have discussed the genetic evidence of Indigenous Mexican-African admixture that  is compelling (refer to articles cited above). The frequency of HLA B*35 at 45% is highest among the Maya.  We also find that the YAP+ associated with AàG transition at DYS271 and 9bp also has a high frequency among the Maya, all these markers are associated with African ancestry. This is  not surprising because Quatrefages  classified the Chontal Maya as Black Native Americans  , and  sickle cell anemia is found among ancient Mayan skeletons.

The Amerindian haplogroups (hg) are descendant from the L3(M,N, & X) macrohaplogroup): ABCDN and X. The L3 (M,N,X) marcogroup converge at np 16223.

The phylogeography of haplogroup C suggest that this American founder haplogroup differentiated in Siberia—Asia . The situation is not so clear for haplogrop B2, but A2 and D1 probably differentiated after the mongoloid Native American  lineages diverged after crossing the Beringa Straits.

Haplogroup A2 has the motif 16111T,16223c, 16290T, 16319A and 16223C . Haplogroup A is rare in Siberia . Interestingly, haplogroup A absent in western North America is common in parts of Central America and Northern America  where the Spanish reported the existence of Black Native American communities.

In a  recent study of post-Classic Mexicans at Tlatilco , dating between 10-13 centuries the subjects carried the founder haplogroups A (36%), B (13%), C (4.3%) and D (17.4%) . We should note, that in Yucatec, the Mayans were predominately haplogroup A, the Maya  in Hondurus, a stronghold of the Black Native Americans belonged to haplogroup C.

The mtDNA  haplogroup A common to Mexicans is also found among the Mande speaking people and some East Africans . Haplogroup A found among Mixe and Mixtecs .The Mande speakers carry mtDNA haplogroup A, which is common among Mexicans . In addition to the Mande speaking people of West Africa, Southeast Africa Africans also carry mtDNA haplogroup A .

The major American Indian male lineages include R1, C,D and Q3.There is evidence of African admixture in the American y-chromosome   haplogroups. The Q  y-haplogroup has the highest frequency among indigenous Mexicans. The frequency hg Q varies from a high of 54% for Q-M243, and  a low of 46% for QM .

Underhill et al , noted that:" One Mayan male, previously [has been] shown to have an African Y chromosome". This is very interesting because the Maya language illustrates a Mande substratum, in addition to African genetic markers . Recent research indicate  the Ch’ol and Chontal also carry E1b1b .

African y-chromosome are associated with YAP+ and 9bp. The YAP-à associated with A-àG transition at DYS271 is found among Native Americans.  The YAP+ individuals include Mixe  speakers (32-33). YAP+ is often  present  in haplogroups (hg) C and D.

The DYS271 transition is of African origin.The DSY271 Alu insertion   is found only in chromosomes bearing Alu insertion (YAP+) at locus DYS287 (33). The  DYS271 transition was found among the Wayuu, Zenu and Inzano. The Mexican Native American y-chromosome bearing the African markers is resident in haplogroups C and D .

 

 

The R haplogroup is carried by Mexicans. The frequency of hg R varies from Tarahumara (5.6%), Otomi (14.3%), Yucateca Maya (10.5%). There is also a high frequency of haplogroup R among the Ch’ol and Chontal which stood around 15% . The most pristine form of R-M173 is carried by Africans.   The haplogroup R-M173 is not found in Siberia..  The Ch’ol and Chontal also carry E1b1b . The fact that Neves discovered the Paleoamericans were Black, makes it clear that the ancestors of the Aztecs and Chontal may be descendants of this Mexican population.

In addition, eyewitness accounts of SSA populations in the Caribbean, and Mexico  anthropologists have found SSA skeletons at Pre-Columbian sites . Moore, Wailoo, and Whittington  report that ancient Mayan skeletal remains indicate that they suffered from sickle cell anemia an illness associated with Sub-Saharan Africans . The presence of sickle cell anemia  among the ancient Maya, supports Quatrefages claim that the Chontal Maya were Africans . Winters has shown the Manding, an African language, as a  substratum in Mayan languages.

In summary, the genetic evidence makes it clear Black descendants of the paleoamericans were in Mexico when the Spanish arrived there, and exist in Mexico today. Stop trying to steal the history of the paleoamericans and their contemporary Black descendants in Mexico.

Well Clyde, I keep trying to varify your claims but mostly I get sent to articles written by...Clyde Winters! When I check your bibliography most of the articles are pretty hard to find. Most are VERY outdated and rely upon ancient methodologies. You claim to have proof for instance, to have "proof" of sickle cell trait in ancient Maya. However, the article only notes "similarities" between the bones of known sufferers of SCT and the skulls of Maya. This is NOT proof of Sickle Cell Trait in the Maya but rather, a similarity in bone structure. It's gonna take me a while to get through your alphabet soup but, I'm pretty sure I'll be finding the same results.

Clyde Winters's picture

You are such a liar, if the bones show evidence of sickle cell—the person had sickle cell.. I did not write about Sickle Cell Anemia among the Maya it was Moore, Wailoo and Whittington. 

Moore,S. (1929). The Bone Change in Sickle Cell Anemia with A Note on Similar Changes Observed in Skulls of Ancient Mayan Indians, Journal  of Missouri Medical Association, 26:561

Wailoo, Keith. (2002). Drawing Blood: Technology and Disease Identity in Twentieth-Century America. JHU Press.

Whittington, S. L., & Reed, D. M. (1997). Bones of the Maya: Studies of ancient skeletons. Washington, D.C: Smithonian Institution Press.

Well, Looks like Wailoo and Whittingham et al simply reference Moore 1929. Therefore, they are redundant to this discussion. Way to pad the old bibliography. As to Moore 1929, I have yet to find it online. Provide a link and I'll be happy to read it. What I have gleaned in my efforts suggests that the paper notes that a Mayan skull was found that showed bone pathology reminiscent of that found in SCD. Hardly "proof" that SCD was found in an ancient Mayan skull. BTW, you are aware that SCD is found in populations as well as Africans? Seems like it spontaneously developed in at least 4 separate regions of the planet.

Clyde Winters's picture

Sickle cell disease (SCD) is an inherited/genetic  red blood cell disorders carried by Black people. it can not spontaneously appear among non-Blacks.

Moore,S. (1929). The Bone Change in Sickle Cell Anemia with A Note on Similar Changes Observed in Skulls of Ancient Mayan Indians,Jour of Missouri Medical Association, 26:561, is a standard work in Osteoarchaeology. Scientist use Moore's work to teach students how to recognize anemias from skeletal remains see: https://www.academia.edu/3289772/Thalassemia_macroscopic_and_radiologica...

To make it appear that  SCD does not indicate a population  that is Black you claim that Moore's work is no longer relevant yet , A. LAGIA,* C. ELIOPOULOS AND S. MANOLIS,Thalassemia: Macroscopic and Radiological Study of a Case,   https://www.academia.edu/3289772/Thalassemia_macroscopic_and_radiological_study_of_a_case

explains how important the Moore paper is in understanding how to identify anemias in skeletal remains. In addition Moore's work is discussed in  Whittington, S. L., & Reed, D. M. (1997). Bones of the Maya: Studies of ancient skeletons. Washington, D.C: Smithonian Institution Press ; and  Wailoo, Keith. (2002). Drawing Blood: Technology and Disease Identity in Twentieth-Century America. JHU Press. The Lagia et al article was published in 2007 , this shows that the Moore article is still referenced by Osteoarchaeologists.
Sickle cell anemia in ancient Mayan skeletons proves that there were Black Mayan tribes. We know there were Black Mayan tribes because 1) only Sub-Saharan Africans carry sickle cell anemia, and 2) Quatrefages (1889) reported that members of the Mayan Chontal tribe were Negroes or Black.

Um...I hate to tell you this but, SSD NATURALLY occurs in Alto Saharan as well as Sub Saharan Africa, The Near East, Southern Europe (especially Greece and Italy) and India. It is not, nor has it ever been endemic to Sub Saharan Africa. I have been diligently searching but as yet have not found any articles detailing its origins or a genetic clock for its time line. I shall continue to look and will let you know if I find anything. So far, the earliest record is 1910.

The Lagia et al article is about Thalassimias, not SSD. In fact, it clearly states that the craniofacial lesions in the studied skeletons preclude SSD. He doesn't even discuss Moore 1929.Nothing in this article to show the existence of SSD on Ancient America. Therefore, there is no epidemiological evidence of Africans in The Maya.

Again, if you have a link to Moore 1929, I'd love to read it. Always best to go to the primary source.

Oh, I almost forgot, that "white" guy on the alter? He's a royal sacrificial victim. The so called El Dorado of the Spanish. It was common practice for the Maya to cover a royal victim with gold dust before sacrificing him/her and tossing the body into a sacred Cenote. Hence the term "El Dorado" meaning The Golden One.

Clyde Winters's picture

Sharer and Traxler claim the sacrificial victim was painted blue—not  covered with gold dust. In addition El Dorado, referred to "riches" or a city of gold. Please cite your source that sacrificial victims were covered with gold dust. 

Reference:

Sharer, Robert J.; Loa P. Traxler (2006). The Ancient Maya (6th (fully revised) ed.). Stanford, California, USA: Stanford University Press. ISBN 0-8047-4817-9. OCLC 57577446.

Yes, sacrifices to Tlaloc were indeed painted blue. They were generally prisoners of war, slaves, volunteers and especially children who's tears were thought to bring the rain. HOWEVER, on occasion, a member of the ruling class was sacrificed.He or she was dusted with gold rather than being painted blue. The name El Dorado does not refer to a city of gold. This is a bastardization of of the myth that was created during the exploration of South America in the 1600s. The term El Dorado literally translates to "The Golden One" and refers to the sacrificial victim though it also refers to coronation ceremonies from the Musica people of Columbia.

Clyde Winters's picture

You should be ashamed of yourself. Stop spreading lies about what El Dorado means; here you are talking about Columbia, when this article is about the Aztecs and Maya people of mexico—not South America.

LOL, Lies? Ashamed? Listen Hoss, El Dorado LITERALLY translates as The Golden One. Y...yo hablo Espanol. Yes, I mentioned the Musica of Columbis as well as the Maya. That's because the European myth of El Dorado is based upon garbled stories So America, Mesoamerica and Even No America. De Soto was looking for El Dorado in Florida! The origin of the myth is from BOTH areas so I mentioned the connection. I thought THAT was pretty darn obvious but, I guess you missed it.

Clyde Winters's picture

Stop lying you made up a definition of El Dorado to confuse readers.This article is about the Maya and Aztecs, not South Americans.

El Dorado | Definition of El Dorado by Merriam-Webster
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/El%20Dorado1 : a city or country of fabulous riches held by 16th century explorers to exist in South America. 2 : a place of fabulous wealth or opportunity. See words that ...
 

Um...Definition #1 is pretty much what I said and Definition #2 is a modern adaptation. What's your point? As I mentioned in another post, the search for El Dorado was the driving force behind much of the Spanish exploration of North, South and Central America. I would also add the point (again) that the "city of gold" is a bastardization of the cultural practice. Sees the story grew with the telling as these stories so often do. None of this changes the FACT that El Dorado translates as The Golden One and refers to a person rather than a city.

Clyde Winters's picture

The point is that the man being sacrficed was not covered with gold dust as you claim; and that he was not El Dorado, the ‘golden one’ as you also falsely claimed. This was made up by you to deny the presence of whites in ancient Mexico.

Well then, he must be Asian 'cause his skin is CLEARLY yellow. LOL, you really crack me up. WHY would I want to deny the presence of whites in ancient Mexico? The hallmark of good science is following the FACTS to their logical conclusion. Should facts that contradict my beliefs present them selves I am perfectly comfortable with modifying my beliefs to match the facts. I have done it many times and will, no doubt, do it again. THAT's how science is done. You begin with a conclusion and then cherry pic your facts to support your beliefs while ignoring any data that upset your mental apple cart. THAT is more akin to creation "science". IF...if some solid, factual information should come to light elucidating the presence of Africans and/or Europeans in the ancient Americas I will be among the first to pick up that ball and run with it. Until then, I will call bull shit on your pseudo-scientific ranting where ever I come across it. Your ravings are right up there with Ancient Aliens and Atlantis fantasies.

Clyde Winters's picture

Stop lying, El Dorado means “The Golden”, literally in Spanish, not “the golden one”. stick to the theme of this article: Blacks and whites in ancient Mexico, not the search for El Dorado in South America and Florida.

No, Gold is oro. Golden is dorado, like the mahi mahi fish's name in Spanish: dorado. The addition of the article "el" makes it the golden or gilded one.

I agree with Joe Trinakrian that although the Aztecs were later than the Vikings there were people related to the Aztecs in Mexico back to 500 or 600 AD. These were the Nahua or Nahuatl people and one branch of them that the Aztecs said they descended from were the Toltec people. The Toltecs mostly lived in what is now Hidalgo state in Mexico close to Mexico City. However, according to the book The Maya by Michael D. Coe on the chronological table on page 10 he says that Toltecs arrived in the Yucatan around 925 AD and came to a position of power there until about 1200 AD. This could have overlapped some of the Viking sailing time and some of the late Mayan civilization. This could have enabled black Toltec/later Aztec people to imprison or kill white (Viking) people and then the brown (Mayan) people to assist in welcoming white people (the Spanish) to overthrow the black (Aztec) people in the 16th century. However I am not sure who the white people who were mentioned in 600 to 900 AD were or what evidence there is for them or for black people, even Toltecs, being in the Yucatan that early so I would want some more information on that point.

Actually, the Aztecs did not enter the Valley of Anahuac until about 1300 ad nor was Nahuatl their native tongue. Previous to 1300 ad the Aztecs were living a transhuman existence in the deserts of north central Mexico. They are most likely cousins of the Huichol and related groups collectively referred to by the common Nahuatl term "Chichimeca" which loosely translated means sons of bitches and refers to their tendency to dress in dog skin. They adopted Nahuatl during their stint as mercenaries among the cities of the lake Texcoco. The fabled homeland of the Chichimeca was a pace called Aztlan which may or may not have really existed. From folk descriptions Aztlan would have appeared to have been somewhere between the Mississippi river and Florida and possibly as far north as Tennessee.

Clyde Winters's picture

Stop making things up. We don’t know where the Aztecs originated. Moreover, Nahuatl  is Aztec language, Other people adopted the language which was used as a lingua franca in Cantral Mexico because it was the language of the Elites and government.

LOL, I'm making nothing up. According to the the Mexica (the proper name for the Aztecs) creation myth they came from Aztlan. Where Aztlan actually was, is uncertain but, it has been postulated that it was located along the Gulf Coast. The proto Aztecs arrived in the Valley of Anahuac ca 1300 AD.from north central Mexico. They were members of a nomadic group called Chichimeca by the people of The Valley. A derogatory term that translates to Sons of Bitches. This seems to have been because they wore dog skin clothing. They were not Nahualteca but, seem to have been closely related to the Huichol (Wixaritari) of Jalisco and Nayarit. While they were Uto-Aztecans they did not speak the language of the Valley i.e. Nahuatl. For the next few years they acted as mercenaries for the city of Azcapotzalco. After conquering the other cities of the lake the Mexica were betrayed and hounded around the lake until they took refuge on a series of swampy islands. There they settled and built Chinampas, floating gardens that eventually solidified and enlarged the islands that would become the cities of Tenochtitlan and Tlateloco. Eventually, these cities would join to become the city of Tlateloco-Tenochtitlan.They adopted Nahuatl language and customs and by the late 1400s had conquered all of the cities of Anahuac and the areas to the South and East. Only the state of Tlaxcala was strong enough to resist them.The Idea that the Mexica were Nahuatl speakers comes from late 15th century attempts by them to upgrade their history.Very similar to the way the Britons revised their own history to claim descent from the Trojans and kinship with the Romans.

Aren't you the scholar.

I Like Perogies.

Aren't your feelings hurt.

The note says it was AZTECS and Vikings, and the whole story here is around Chichen Itza in the Peninsula of Yucatan MAYA lands.
Not to mention that if you study a bit you can see that dates don't allow this two cultures to meet as they were not existing in parallel but one after the other.
What a way to fool people, the problem is those who ignore and believe this kind of jokes.

Clyde Winters's picture

The Viking period and date of Chichen Itza correspond. The navigation and sailing ability of the Vikings during this period is well known. The existence of Europeans at Chichen Itza makes it clear these whites were probably Vikings given the Viking sagas of sailing to the New World.

 Stop trying to confuse the readers. Alexander von Wuthenau had made it clear over 50 years ago that Meso-America was a cosmopolitan society where many different races lived.

Yes, the sailing ability of the Vikings IS well known as is where they went (from the Sagas).Contrary to your claims, NO where in the Sagas is mention made of a city in the New World. Now, I don't know about you but, it seems to me such a discovery would be worth mentioning when telling the story of your adventures. Additionally, there is no archaeological evidence of a Viking (or any other European culture) presence in the Yucatan pre 1500s. Nor is there any biological evidence (physical or genetic). In short, the sum total of your 'evidence' is a couple of drawings in a codex that was made AFTER the European conquest. NOTHING you have presented here is actual EVIDENCE for a European or Viking presence in the Yucatan before the early 1500s. It is all rank speculation. I think you've read too many Robert E. Howard novels. As to Alexander Von Wuthenau, He was and has always been a crackpot of the worst type. One who takes a grain of truth and, ignoring a wealth of information to the contrary, creates a fantasy world that matches his preconceived notions. The Olmec, simply put, have no African genetics beyond those all humans share. They are Native Americans in good standing and while their features as depicted in their art, do appear to be vaguely African this is only a result of very stylized artistic licence related to their Jaguar cult.

Clyde Winters's picture

You are thr crackpot. You have mentioned in your post info relating to South America, when this article is about Mexico. In a delusional rant you talk about Olmec DNA when up to now we have no Olmec DNA, but we do have Olmec skeletal remains that indicate they were Blacks, just like the Paleoamericans were Blacks.

LOL! Tsk, tsk...more Ad Hominems?

Seems your Famous or at least infamous on this subject.

http://ancientaliensdebunked.com/mystery-solved-olmecs-and-transoceanic-...

Further supporting the isolation of the Olmecs from other people groups was a comparative study in “Tissue Antigens” 2000: 56:” of Mazatecans (Descendents of the Olmecs/Mayans), other Indians and other world populations. Titled “HLA genes in Mexican Mazatecans, the peopling of the Americas and the uniqueness of Amerindians,” and written by several authors including A. Arnaiz-Villena , the study conluded:
“Significant genetic input from outside is not noticed in Meso and South American Amerindians according to the phylogenetic analyses; while all world populations (including Africans, Europeans, Asians, Australians, Polynesians, North American Na-Dene Indians and Eskimos) are genetically related. Meso and South American Amerindians tend to remain isolated in the Neighbor-Joining.”
Further,
“Amerindians do not show relationships with Polynesians, Australians (almost discounting a massive Pacific colonization…), Caucasoids or African blacks.” (Arnaiz-Villena; pg 413)
Within the article the genetic make up and similarity of a number of populations and a comparison of genetic “closeness” is conducted. In short, the Mazatecans (Olmecs) stand pretty much apart from all of the other surveyed ethnicities. Other conclusions are that the Olmecs are the likely progenitors of the Mayans, the peopling of the Americas was a lot more complicated than a simple emigration from Asia, and genetic evidence may suggest that people moved from South America, to North America, and into Asia. To make a long story short, the Olmecs did not originate in Africa, nor intermix with Africans at any point making it seem unlikely that the Africans visited the Olmecs.

Well, I guess that puts paid to your claim we have no Olmec DNA.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11144288

From the above article:

"Abstract
The HLA allele frequency distribution of the Mexican Mazatecan Indians (Olmec culture) has been studied and compared with those of other First American Natives and worldwide populations (a total of 12,100 chromosomes; 6,050 individuals from 59 different populations). The main conclusions are: 1) An indirect evidence of Olmec and Mayan relatedness is suggested, further supporting the notion that Olmecs may have been the precursors of Mayans; 2) Language and genetics do not completely correlate in microenvironmental studies; and 3) Peopling of the Americas was probably more complex than postulated by Greenberg and others (three peopling waves). Significant genetic input from outside is not noticed in Meso and South American Amerindians according to the phylogenetic analyses; while all world populations (including Africans, Europeans, Asians, Australians, Polynesians, North American Na-Dene Indians and Eskimos) are genetically related. Meso and South American Amerindians tend to remain isolated in the Neighbor-Joining, correspondence and plane genetic distance analyses"

Again, genetics i.e. genotype trump "looks like" i.e. phenotype every time. Your claim flies into the face of the FACTS. Your theory doesn't have a leg to stand on.

Clyde Winters's picture

 

You cited an article written by Arnaiz-Villena in 2000, he has changed his view on the presence of Blacks in Mexico. He wrote:

 All of these data should not be disregarded, because all of them should help to account for the true peopling history and First Native Americans’ relatedness. In fact, the true scenario may altogether be different and more complicated than foreseen since there are archaeological indications that Caucasoids(48), African Blacks(49), and other populations(17,50) may have all been among the First Native Americans. Particularly, Negroids are reported in the First Spanish Chronicles, as seen by Spanish Conquerors in Meso-America, Caribbean and the north-western area of South America(49). In fact, many scholars are increasingly doubtful that fullblown Olmec, Toltec, Mayan and Peruvian cultures (otherwise similar to Egyptian culture in certain aspects) appeared without external contact(18,48,49,51). Moreover, the most ancient archaeological American sites are far from the postulated entrance door: the Bering strait (Monteverde, Chile; Peña Furada, Brazil)(51,52).

Arnaiz-Villena,A, Moscoso, J.,Serrano-Vela,I. (2006).The uniqueness of Amerindians according to HLA genes and the peopling of the Americas. http://www.inmunologia.org/Upload/Articles/6/7/678.pdf

4.

From the abstract of the above article: " In the present study
we have been able to uncover that Amerindians apparently do
not relate with any other worldwide population, according to
their HLA genetic profile"

From the discussion:

"Neighbour-Joining and correspondence analyses were
done by putting together many worldwide and American
populations (Figs. 2, 3, 4). Both analyses show again that
Amerindians (Meso and South American) are not genetically
related to Na-Dene (Athabaskan) and Eskimos. Also,
Amerindians do not show relationships with Polynesians,
Australians [almost discarding a massive Pacific colonization,
as suggested in(16)], Caucasoids or African Blacks. However,
our Bolivian Quechua population shows some HLA
relationship with Na-Dene and Asiatic populations (see
results), reflecting both possible cultural and genetic contacts
with these populations."

Seems pretty clear that he has NOT changed his mind.

Clyde Winters's picture

Stop trying to make yourself right. The first thing I used to teach my students in the Research Course they had to take to earn a Master Degree, was to critically  read the article  you intead to cite in a research paper. The Abstract of an article does not tell everything written in the article itself. The quotation from the article I cited above proves that you only read Abstracts instead of doing actual research.

LOL, then take your own advise! The whole point of the Abstract is to sumerize the article and its conclusions.

"noun
ˈabˌstrakt/
1.
a summary of the contents of a book, article, or formal speech.
"an abstract of his inaugural address"
synonyms: summary, synopsis, précis, résumé, outline, abridgment, digest, summation; wrap-up
"an abstract of her speech"

However, I actually DID read the article and most of the quotes I posted are from the body of the article. BTW, I posted the entire quotes unlike you. You left off the first sentence of the paragraph in which it was stated that Native Americans are not closely related to any other humans including Africans. All you chose to quote was an aside noting that things could change with further investigation. Cherry picking at its worst. Throughout the article it is stated in various ways that Native Americans have unique genetics and are not closely related to Africans, Europeans, Pacific Islanders or Australians. Your own citation refutes your claims.

Clyde Winters's picture

There is no evidence the Mazatecans  were Olmecs. It was pure speculation by Arnaiz-Villena that the Mazatecans  were descendants of the Olmecs . The Olmec lived along the Gulf coast, the Mazatecans  live in Southern Mexico.

Actually, the Mazateca and the Olmeca have an area of overlap in the coastal region of Veracruz.They both seem to share a relationship with the Zapotec and the Maya as well.

Clyde Winters's picture

The Olmec language influenced the Mayan and other Mexican languages . Swadesh, Morris in The Language of the Archaeological Huastecs,  ( Notes on Middle American Archaelogy and Ethnology 1953 4:223-227) noted that the linguistic evidence suggest that around 1200 B.C., when the Olmec arrived in the Gulf, region of Mexico a  non-Maya speaking group wedged itself between the Huastecs and Maya. The Olmec was probably this new intrusive group that wedged between these tribes.

Mexican tranditions claim the Olmec came to Mexico by sea. The archaeological evidence, suggest that the founders of the Olmec civilization were not “indigenous” people.

In the Olmec World: Ritual and Rulership (1995), (ed.) by Carolyn Tate, on page 65, we find the following statement”Olmec culture as far as we know seems to have no antecedents; no material models remain for its monumental constructions and sculptures and the ritual acts captured in small objects”.

M. Coe, writing in Regional Perspective on the Olmecs (1989), (ed.) by Sharer and Grove, observed that “ on the contrary, the evidence although negative, is that the Olmec style of art, and Olmec engineering ability suddenly appeared full fledged from about 1200 BC”. 

Mary E. Pye, writing in Olmec Archaeology in Mesoamerica (2000), (ed.) by J.E. Cark and M.E. Pye,makes it clear after a discussion of the pre-Olmec civilizations of the Mokaya tradition, that these cultures contributed nothing to the rise of the Olmec culture. Pye wrote “The Mokaya appear to have gradually come under Olmec influence during Cherla times and to have adopted Olmec ways. We use the term olmecization to describe the processes whereby independent groups tried to become Olmecs, or to become like the Olmecs” (p.234). Pye makes it clear that it was around 1200 BC that Olmec civilization rose in Mesoamerica. She continues “Much of the current debate about the Olmecs concerns the traditional mother culture view. For us this is still a primary issue. Our data from the Pacific coast show that the mother culture idea is still viable in terms of cultural practices. The early Olmecs created the first civilization in Mesoamerica; they had no peers, only contemporaries” (pp.245-46).

Richard A. Diehl The Olmecs:America’s first civilization (2005), wrote “ The identity of these first Olmecs remains a mystery. Some scholars believe they were Mokaya migrants from the Pacific coast of Chiapas who brought improved maize strains and incipient social stratification with them. Others propose that Olmec culture evolved among the local indigenous populations without significant external stimulus. I prefer the latter position, but freely admit that we lack sufficient information on the period before 1500 BC to resolve the issue” (p.25).

Pool (17-18), in Olmec Archaeology and early MesoAmerica (2007), argues that continuity exist between the Olmec and pre-Olmec cultures in Mexico “[even]though Coe now appears to favor an autochthonous origin for Olmec culture (Diehl & Coe 1995:150), he long held that the Olmec traits appeared at San Lorenzo rather suddenly during the Chicharras phase (ca 1450-1408 BC) (Coe 1970a:25,32; Coe and Diehl 1980a:150)”.

As a result, Olmec is a substratum language in Maya and Mixe-Zoque among other Mexican languages. Just because the languages may show a substratum relationship does not make the Maya and  Mazatecan speakers  descendants of the Olmecs .

LOL, paleoagricultural studies whold say you're wrong. Clearly, you have no idea how civilizations evolve. Simply claiming that someone once said the Olmec arrived by sea is meaningless. What is important to note is that Mesoamerican structures are not built like those of other regions (another point that makes them unique). Mesoamerican buildings are built using the rubble fill technique. Rather than tear down the previous structure a new one is built around and over it with the space between being filled with rubble. You end up with a series of nested buildings. Hence, the buildings we see today are the end stage of hundreds of years of architectural evolution. In some cases the initial structure was made of wood. So, contrary to your statement, the Olmec monumental buildings did not suddenly appear out of no where.

Clyde Winters's picture

Alexander von Wuthenau was not a crackpot. In his several books he proved that Meso-America was a multiracial society where nationalities from all over the world, met,  mated and traded with one another. Your  irrational  belief that there were no Blacks in Mexico before Columbus can no longer be supported given the fact that the paleoamericans Luzia of Brazil and Naia of Mexico were phenotypically African  Melanesia or Australian according to Neves and Critters, people who we classify as Blacks. The fact that the Polish physical anthropologist Wiercinski, found Mongoloid, African and European skeletons at Olmec sites make it clear that when von Wuthenau wrote about the multi-ethnic heritage of Mexico , his findings were valid and true. There is no evidence that the present mongoloid Indians of Mexico killed off all the paleoamericans, so it is ludicrous for you to claim that there were no Blacks in Mexico, when the Spanish claimed the Chontal Maya and Aztecs were Blacks.

 

 

Von Wuthenau, Alexander. (1980). Unexplained Faces in Ancient America, 2nd Edition, Mexico 1980.

Wiener, Leo.(1922). Africa and the Discovery of America.

Wiercinski, A.(1969). Affinidades raciales de algunas poblaiones antiquas de Mexico, Anales de INAH, 7a epoca, tomo II, 123-143.

 

Wiercinski,A. (1972). Inter-and Intrapopulational Racial Differentiation of Tlatilco, Cerro de Las Mesas, Teothuacan, Monte Alban and Yucatan Maya, XXXlX Congreso Intern. de Americanistas, Lima 1970 ,Vol.1, 231-252.

 

Wiercinski,A. (1972b). An anthropological study on the origin of "Olmecs", Swiatowit ,33, 143-174.

 

Wiercinski, A. & Jairazbhoy, R.A. (1975) "Comment", The New Diffusionist,5 (18),5.

I think you should review the meaning of the term "proof". NONE of these article "prove" anything. They all make the same basic claim: these skeletons "look like" African skeletons. This claim is meaningless in the face of modern genomic studies which have proven conclusively that there is no African genetic component in ancient America. Period.Perhaps you should put aside your preconceived notions and read some studies from THIS century?

Clyde Winters's picture

Genetics do not supercede skeletal remains. Any member of a population can carry a particular haplogroup—but skeletal remains provide the ethnic identification of a population. In the 1960’s there  was a return to the study of craniometric quantitative analysis and  multivariate methods to determine the Native American population (Neves ,  Powell and Ozolins,  1998,1999a,199b; Powell, 2005). This research indicated that the ancient Americans represent two populations, paleoamericans who were phenotypically African, Australian or Melanesian and a mongoloid population that appears to have arrived in the Americas after 6000 BC. 
References:

Neves W.A . and Pucciarelli H.M. 1991. "Morphological Affinities of the First Americans: an exploratory analysis based on early South American human remains". Journal of Human Evolution 21:261-273.

Neves W.A ., Powell J.F. and Ozolins E.G. 1999. "Extra-continental morphological affinities of Lapa Vermelha IV Hominid 1: A multivariate analysis with progressive numbers of variables. Homo 50:263-268

 Neves W.A ., Powell J.F. and Ozolins E.G. 1999. "Extra-continental morphological affinities of Palli-Aike, Southern Chile". Interciencia 24:258-263. http://www.interciencia.org/v24_04/neves.pdf

Powell,J.F. (2005). First Americans:Races, Evolution  and the Origin of Native Americans. Cambridge University Press.

Pages

Register to become part of our active community, get updates, receive a monthly newsletter, and enjoy the benefits and rewards of our member point system OR just post your comment below as a Guest.

Top New Stories

Antarctica.
On a chilly winter day in 1929, Halil Edhem, the Director of Turkey's National Museum, was hunched over his solitary task of classifying documents. He pulled towards him a map drawn on Roe deer skin. As Halil opened the chart to its full dimensions (two feet by three feet wide or 60 X 90 cm) he was surprised by how much of the New World was depicted on a map which dated from 1513.

Myths & Legends

Deriv; Lunar phases, The Brothers Grimm and goddess Nut
The fairytale of Snow White was written by the Brothers Grimm during the mid-19 th century, and like all of their fables it was written as a parable and therefore infused with layers of hidden...

Ancient Places

Antarctica.
On a chilly winter day in 1929, Halil Edhem, the Director of Turkey's National Museum, was hunched over his solitary task of classifying documents. He pulled towards him a map drawn on Roe deer skin. As Halil opened the chart to its full dimensions (two feet by three feet wide or 60 X 90 cm) he was surprised by how much of the New World was depicted on a map which dated from 1513.

Our Mission

At Ancient Origins, we believe that one of the most important fields of knowledge we can pursue as human beings is our beginnings. And while some people may seem content with the story as it stands, our view is that there exists countless mysteries, scientific anomalies and surprising artifacts that have yet to be discovered and explained.

The goal of Ancient Origins is to highlight recent archaeological discoveries, peer-reviewed academic research and evidence, as well as offering alternative viewpoints and explanations of science, archaeology, mythology, religion and history around the globe.

We’re the only Pop Archaeology site combining scientific research with out-of-the-box perspectives.

By bringing together top experts and authors, this archaeology website explores lost civilizations, examines sacred writings, tours ancient places, investigates ancient discoveries and questions mysterious happenings. Our open community is dedicated to digging into the origins of our species on planet earth, and question wherever the discoveries might take us. We seek to retell the story of our beginnings. 

Ancient Image Galleries

View from the Castle Gate (Burgtor). (Public Domain)
Door surrounded by roots of Tetrameles nudiflora in the Khmer temple of Ta Phrom, Angkor temple complex, located today in Cambodia. (CC BY-SA 3.0)
Cable car in the Xihai (West Sea) Grand Canyon (CC BY-SA 4.0)
Next article