Home of the The Hall of Ma'at on the Internet
Home
Discussion Forums
Papers
Authors
Web Links

May 6, 2024, 7:59 am UTC    
August 25, 2001 08:22AM
<HTML>Hi Anthony,

Except his sentence doesn't say there has been work showing the indigenious origins for the Olmec Heads and gives the reasons why he disagrees with it. Instead he ignores the work. If he wasn't satisfied then he should have said "I am not satisfied with the explanations put forward by orthodox scholars as to the origins of the Olmec Heads". His explanation claims they represent people other than the indigenuous Indians and so any work which proves they do is refutting his position.

Indegnious wording most definitely, but for once stepping on the "wrong" side of the line.

>Of course, anybody that knows South American anthropology
>immediately recognizes the facial features as distinctly indigenous... but
>it does make for fun reading.

That it does:-)

Mike.</HTML>
Subject Author Posted

Hancock and the Olmec Heads

Mikey Brass August 25, 2001 06:12AM

Re: Hancock and the Olmec Heads

Anthony August 25, 2001 08:11AM

Re: Hancock and the Olmec Heads

Mikey Brass August 25, 2001 08:22AM

Re: Hancock and the Olmec Heads

Anthony August 25, 2001 08:47AM

Re: Hancock and the Olmec Heads

Katherine Reece August 25, 2001 09:56AM

Re: Hancock and the Olmec Heads

Jason August 25, 2001 09:53AM

Re: Hancock and the Olmec Heads

Mikey Brass August 25, 2001 10:57AM

Re: Hancock and the Olmec Heads

Anthony August 25, 2001 01:23PM

Re: Hancock and the Olmec Heads

Deano August 25, 2001 08:00PM

Re: Hancock and the Olmec Heads

Mikey Brass August 26, 2001 04:28AM

Re: Hancock and the Olmec Heads

David Campbell August 26, 2001 10:33PM

Re: Hancock and the Olmec Heads

Mikey Brass August 27, 2001 03:16AM



Sorry, only registered users may post in this forum.

Click here to login