Monday, July 16, 2018

The Solutreans were African


  

The archaeological and craniometric measurements show that the Solutreans were Africans, namely Bushmen or Khoisan. The Aurignacian civilization was founded by the Cro-Magnon people who originated in Africa. They took this culture to Western Europe across the Straits of Gibraltar. The Cro-Magnon people were probably Bushman/Khoi.


There have been numerous "Negroid skeletons" found in Europe. Marcellin Boule and Henri Vallois, in Fossil Man, provide an entire chapter on the Africans/Negroes of Europe Anta Diop also discussed the Negroes of Europe in Civilization or Barbarism, pp.25-68. Also W.E. B. DuBois, discussed these Negroes in the The World and Africa, pp.86-89. DuBois noted that "There was once a an "uninterrupted belt' of Negro culture from Central Europe to South Africa" (p.88).

Many researchers have recognized that the Solutrean culture of Iberia probably originated in Africa(Burkitt, 2012; Childe, 2001; Debenath et al.,1986; Debenath and Dibble, 1994; Tiffagom, 2007). It is the mainstream view of Spanish prehistorians that the Solutrean culture originated in Africa (Pericot,1950). Boule and Vallois (1957) noted that ancient tool kits found in South African burials along the coast are associated with the Solutrean industry. Pericot (1950, 1955) believed that the tanged points at the Parpallo site of the Solutrean were of Aterian cultural origin. Burkitt (2012) said that there were Algerian tools similar to the Solutrean tool kit. Gordon Childe (2009) claimed that the North African and Spanish populations that used the Solutrean tools were in direct communication. By the 1960’s, though, Smith (54) was able to reject the hypothesis of an African origin for the Solutrean culture.

Boule and Vallois in , Fossil Men : elements of human palaeontology, noted that "We know now that the ethnography of South African tribes presents many striking similarities with the ethnography of our populations of the Reindeer Age. Not to speak of their stone implements which, as we shall see later , exhibit great similarities, Peringuey has told us that in certain burials on the South African coast 'associated with the Aurignacian or Solutrean type industry...."(p.318-319). They add, that in relation to Bushman art " This almost uninterrupted series leads us to regard the African continent as a centre of important migrations which at certain times may have played a great part in the stocking of Southern Europe.

 Finally, we must not forget that the Grimaldi Negroid skeletons sho many points of resemblance with the Bushman skeletons". They bear no less a resemblance to that of the fossil Man discovered at Asslar in mid-Sahara, whose characters led us to class him with the Hottentot-Bushman group.

Reference:

Clyde Winters, THE PALEOAMERICANS CAME FROM AFRICA , International Journal of Innovative Research and Review , Available at http://www.cibtech.org/jirr.htm 2015 Vol. 3 (3) July-September, pp.71-83/Winters Research Article © Copyright 2014 | Centre for Info Bio Technology (CIBTech) 71 *

https://www.academia.edu/17137182/THE_PALEOAMERICANS_CAME_FROM_AFRICA


Paleoamericans are not related to mongoloid Native Americans



The Paleoamericans were not modern mongoloid Native Americans. Taubadel, Strauss Hubbe (2017) noted that , “The MDS results confirm previous observations regarding the generalized affinities 
of the Lagoa Santa crania and their differences from East Asian and other Native American populations (18, 20, 24, 26, 42, 44). Mantel tests (45) confirmed that the overall among-population affinity patterns displayed by all four cranial data sets were significantly and positively correlated (P = 0.001)”. 


As a result, the authors note that, “It is also worth noting that, although our results are consistent with the high levels of within-continent diversity noted previously, Lagoa Santa crania were not found to be outliers to contemporary modern human cranial variation. That is, their morphological variability falls within that observed among modern human populations, yet their overall morphology cannot be accounted for by a null hypothesis of shared common ancestry with all subarctic Native Americans. “ 


These authors support the OOA event. They claim that the ancestors of the Australians came from Africa. Taubadel,Strauss,Hubbe (2017) observed that “ There is mounting genetic and morphological evidence for at least two major waves of dispersal into Asia from Africa, with Australomelanesians representing modern descendants of the earlier migration (52, 53)…. Earlier (Paleo)siberian populations would have shared greater genetic affinity with Australasians further south as an outcome of their shared out-of-Africa dispersal history. However, as time progressed, further dispersal from Africa along with differentiation and gene flow within Asia would have altered the genetic signature of the northeast Asian source populations that gave rise to later Paleoeskimo and (possibly) other Native American populations “.

 In conclusion the Taubadel, Strauss, Hubbe (2017) concluded that “The earliest (Paleoamerican) migrants were morphologically distinct from later groups, although structured gene flow among the descendants of Paleoamericans and later populations may have contributed to their assimilation in the late Holocene. “.


Reference
Noreen von Cramon-Taubadel, André Strauss, and Mark Hubbe. (2017). Evolutionary population history of early Paleoamerican cranial morphology. Science Advances (22 Feb 2017), Vol. 3, no. 2, http://advances.sciencemag.org/content/3/2/e1602289.full

Are the Australians Archaic Humans





Europeans make the claim the archaics are not humans, but the physical features of Australians are archaic. I am talking about, Rhodesia man, and Neanderthals. The only difference between modern Africans/Negroes and Archaic are Australoid brows that are sloping and with prominent ridges.If,Australians are human beings, the Neanderthals were humans too. Boule and Vollois in Fossil Man, noted that:




 But I will not argue this point, because it is common sense. Eurocentrists prefer you lose common sense an accept the lies they teach us as true. A luta continua...The struggle continues....

Friday, July 13, 2018

Paleoamericans are not related to mongoloid Native Americans





The Paleoamericans were not modern mongoloid Native Americans. Taubadel, Strauss Hubbe (2017) noted that , “The MDS results confirm previous observations regarding the generalized affinities of the Lagoa Santa crania and their differences from East Asian and other Native American populations (18, 20, 24, 26, 42, 44). Mantel tests (45) confirmed that the overall among-population affinity patterns displayed by all four cranial data sets were significantly and positively correlated (P = 0.001)”. As a result, the authors note that, “It is also worth noting that, although our results are consistent with the high levels of within-continent diversity noted previously, Lagoa Santa crania were not found to be outliers to contemporary modern human cranial variation. That is, their morphological variability falls within that observed among modern human populations, yet their overall morphology cannot be accounted for by a null hypothesis of shared common ancestry with all subarctic Native Americans. “  
      
These authors support the OOA event. They claim that the ancestors of the Australians came from Africa. Taubadel,Strauss,Hubbe (2017) observed that  “ There is mounting genetic and morphological evidence for at least two major waves of dispersal into Asia from Africa, with Australomelanesians representing modern descendants of the earlier migration (52, 53)…. Earlier (Paleo)siberian populations would have shared greater genetic affinity with Australasians further south as an outcome of their shared out-of-Africa dispersal history. However, as time progressed, further dispersal from Africa along with differentiation and gene flow within Asia would have altered the genetic signature of the northeast Asian source populations that gave rise to later Paleoeskimo and (possibly) other Native American populations “. 

In conclusion the Taubadel, Strauss, Hubbe (2017) concluded that “The earliest (Paleoamerican) migrants were morphologically distinct from later groups, although structured gene flow among the descendants of Paleoamericans and later populations may have contributed to their assimilation in the late Holocene. “.
Reference
Noreen von Cramon-Taubadel, André Strauss, and Mark Hubbe. (2017). Evolutionary population history of early Paleoamerican cranial morphology. Science Advances  (22 Feb 2017), Vol. 3, no. 2, http://advances.sciencemag.org/content/3/2/e1602289.full


Monday, July 2, 2018

No L3(M,N) Back migration took Place



Vicente M. Cabrera, Patricia Marrero, Khaled K. Abu-Amero and Jose M. Larruga, Carriers of mitochondrial DNA macrohaplogroup L3 basal lineages migrated back to Africa from Asia around 70,000 years ago, BMC Evolutionary Biology201818:98, https://doi.org/10.1186/s12862-018-1211-4
Cabrera et al (2018) argue that Africans migrated out of Africa earlier than 60,000 years ago, and Eurasians introduced  mtDNA L3 (M,N) as the result of a back migration to Africa 70,000 years ago because this is the statistical coalescence age of haplogroup L3. This hypothesis lacks congruence for two reasons, 1) there is no archaeological evidence of a back migration from Eurasia to Africa; and 2) West Eurasia , was dominated by Neanderthals up until 44,000 BC when anatomically modern humans entered West Eurasia via Iberia.

The archaeological evidence makes it clear that AMH were in California, China, the Levant and the Mediterranean Islands 130-100,000 years ago (kya) (1). The fossil record indicates that mastodon were being butchered in California 130kya, and AMH were on Crete (1). Human teeth have been found in China dating between 120-80kya (3). In the Levant skeletal remains have been found in Skhul and Qafzeh caves dating between 125 kya (2). In addition there is the presence of lithic assemblages in Arabia Peninsula dating to the Middle Stone Age (MSA) around 125-75 kya (4).
Just because AMH had expanded out of Africa 100kya does not mean that they were not Africans.

 In fact these early AMH migrants in Eurasia, continued to practice their African culture. For example,  Trenton W. Holliday, tested the hypothesis that if modern Africans had dispersed into the Levant from Africa, "tropically adapted hominids" would be represented in the archaeological history of the Levant, especially in relation to the Qafzeh-Skhul hominids(5).  Dr. Holliday noted that "In this light, some of the more robust assignments (albeit not 95% of the Qafzeh-Skhul hominids to the sub-Saharan African sample (e.g., Qafzeh 8 at 85%, Skhul 4 at 71%) are remarkable indeed" (p. 62).

 The skeletal remains from  Qafzeh-Skhul  (20,000-10,000),were assigned to the Sub-Saharan population, along with the  Natufians samples (4000 BP) (5). Holliday also found African fauna in the area (5).

In Summary, Holiday observed that “ "The current study demonstrates African-like affinities in the body shape of the Qafzeh-Skhul (QS) hominids. This finding is consistent with craniofacial evidence (Brace 1996) and with zooarchaeological data indicating the presence of African fauna at Qafzeh (Rabinovich and Tchernov 1995; Tchernov 1988, 1992)" (p.64). “
The fauna and zooarchaeological remains from QS, indicate the hominids here exploited African fauna (5). Holliday (5) claims the QS people were Proto-Cro-Magnons, because they were similar in dental and craniological size to the Aurignacian hominids (5,10). Except for the AMH at QS, the vast majority of hominids in the Levant were Neanderthal. Neanderthal remained supreme in Eurasia until 34kya.



The discovery of Sub-Saharan skeletons, flora, fauna in the Levant indicates that there was continuity between the original African migrants out of Africa and people in the Levant up to 4000BP. This archaeological, indicates that there was continual migration of Africans into Eurasia, not vice versa.
Thusly, when Cabrera et al  argues that “With these data at hand, we assess the possibility of the following scenario: L3 exited from Africa as a pre-L3 lineage that evolved as basal L3 in inner Asia. From there, it expanded, returning to Africa as well as expanding to southeastern Asia, giving rise to the African L3 branches in eastern Africa and the M and N L3 Eurasian branches in southeastern Asia, respectively” (6).

This argument fails because the Neanderthal occupied Eurasia up to 44kya(7-10) when Cro-Magnon Africans crossed from Africa into Iberia. As a result, there was no where in Eurasia for L3(M,N) to originate and disseminate back to Africa because there was sustained African presence in the Levant as indicated by the African skeletons, flora and fauna (6).

References

1.Winters, C.  DID MANKIND FIRST EXIT AFRICA 100,000 YEARS AGO?, Ancient Origins, 2017. https://www.ancient-origins.net/history-important-events/did-mankind-first-exit-africa-100000-years-ago-008149
2.Shea JJ, Bar-Yosef O. Who Were The Skhul/Qafzeh People? An Archaeological Perspective on Eurasia’s Oldest Modern Humans. J Isr Prehistoric Soc. 2005;35:451-468.
3.Liu W, Martinón-Torres M, Cai Y, Xing S, Tong H, Pei S, Sier MJ, Wu X, Edwards RL, Cheng H, et al. The earliest unequivocally modern humans in southern China. Nature. 2015;
4.Armitage SJ, Jasim SA, Marks AE, Parker AG, Usik VI, Uerpmann H-P. The southern route “out of Africa”: evidence for an early expansion of modern humans into Arabia. Science. 2011;331:453–6.
5. Holiday, T. (2000). Evolution at the Crossroads: Modern Human Emergence in Western Asia, American Anthropologist,102(1) .
6. Cabrera V M, Patricia Marrero, Khaled K. Abu-Amero and Jose M. Larruga, Carriers of mitochondrial DNA macrohaplogroup L3 basal lineages migrated back to Africa from Asia around 70,000 years ago, BMC Evolutionary Biology201818:98, https://doi.org/10.1186/s12862-018-1211-4
7. Winters, C. (2008). Aurignacian Culture: Evidence of Western Exit for Anatomically Modern Humans. South Asian Anthropologist, 8, 79-81.
8.Winters, C. (2010). Origin and Spread of the Haplogroup N. Bioresearch Bulletin, 3, 116-122.
9.Winters, C. (2011). The Gibraltar out of Africa Exit for Anatomically Modern Humans. WebmedCentral BIOLOGY, 2, Article ID: WMC002311. http://www.webmedcentral.com/article_view/2311
10. Winters, C. (2014). Were the First Europeans Pale or Dark Skinned?. Advances in Anthropology, 4, 124-132. http://file.scirp.org/pdf/AA_2014081417215651.pdf



Saturday, June 23, 2018

Dr. Clyde Winters On-Line Course Course Catalog









201. Blacks in Europe Before the the Europeans .In this course we will discuss the historical, linguistic and anthropological evidence which relates to
the presence of Blacks in Europe; and the coming of the Indo-Europeans. Special mention will be made of the 1) migration routes the Blacks took to
enter Europe;2) the presence of
Blacks in ancient European myths; and 3) the African origin of the Greek gods.

202. Africa and India. In this course we will discuss the relationship between Africans and Dravidians in relation to their common origin, genetic linguistic unity, and the reasons behind their outward differences in physical features.





203. History of Blacks in Asia In this course we will explore the rise of Black empires in ancient China , especially their role in the founding of the Xia and First Shang Empire. This course will also explore the
rise of the Kushite nations of China , their decline and the migration of these Black Chinese onto the Pacific Islands,India, Southeast Asia and Japan.

204. Afrocentric Historiagraphy
This course will be concerned with examining the major
Afrocentric scholors of the 20th century and their
 methods of research. The scholars discussed in this
course include DuBois, Chacellor Williams,D.D. Houston,G.W.
Parker, Diop,Th. Obenga and others. of the world.
                                 
205. Introduction to Afrocentric History
This course will emphasize theoretical and practical aspects ancient Afrocentric history . This is a lecture discussion course intended to acquaint students with the broad contours of the ancient historical experiences of blacks in Africa (Egypt and Kush), Mesopotamia, China, Greece and the Americas; and nurture skilled teaching in this area.

206. Introduction to African Comparative Linguistics
This course will examine the comparative linguistic method in relation to African and Dravidian languages. In this course you will learn the' basic comparative linguistic method , while discovering aspects of Afro -Indo linguistics and the relationship between African and Egyptian languages.
208. The Decipherment of the Indus Vallev writing
In this course the student will dis-cover the Dravidian origin of this script. Students 'will learn the
'basic grammar of the Indus Valley
writing and method of decipherment. By the end of the course students will be able to read the various Indus Valley seals, and understand aspects of the Harappan religion.

207. Decipherment of the Manding And Olmec Scripts. In this course the student will learn how to decipher the Manding script. The Manding script was used to write Minoan Linear A,the Libyco-Berber inscriptions of the Western Sahara and the Olmec writing of ancient America. This course will provide the student with knowledge of the grammar and script of the Manding writing systems. The student will also obtain a basic dictionary of the script and methods of reading the symbols.



208. Blacks in Ancient America.  This survey course deals with the origins of the various Black population in the Americas. We will discuss the various ancient Black Civilizations in Mexico, North and South America.

Application On-Line Course

Are you interested in knowing more about the origin of Black/African people and their ancient history? If the answer is YES, you may be interested in taking an Afrocentric course at home. The Afrocentric study course is designed to help people become aware of the Afrocentric historical and linguistic experience.
These Distance courses will make students aware of the pluridisplinary approach to Afrocentric studies used by C.A. Diop and J.A. Rogers.

The Afrocentric independent studies courses can be taken at any time during the year. Each course last between 6 and 15 weeks depending on the amount of readings necessary for understanding specific historical experiences.

This Afrocentric studies program is not a part of any University. These courses are offered on a private basis by Dr. Clyde Winters. NO Grades will be given.

The sole purpose of this learning program is to teach aspects of Afrocentric studies to the interested public. Work completed in this program of study can not be transferred toward a university degree. But you can earn a Certificate of Participation.

The student will be provided with 1) selected articles and readings associated with the course; 2) lectures will be provided via e-mail. Students will be responsible for purchasing the text used in the course. Other Reading material for each course will be supplied via electronically.

The student will complete a mid-term and final Questionnaire to determine his/her comprehension of the course matter. This questionnaire will be re -turned to the instructor via email. Student will email the instructor

The instructor will reply to such to the questions via email. Satisfactory completion of the 6th or 9th week comprehensive questionnaire leads to the award of the Certificate of Participation. If you are a teacher you can be awarded C.P.D.U.s that can be used toward State Recertification.


The aims of these courses are to increase the student's appreciation of Afrocentric historical themes; they cannot improve, enhance. or add to the skills and abilities of the individual relative to occupational responsibilities or career opportunities .





TUITION AND FEES

In this course the student will pay application fee: $25.00

Tuition: $460.00 per course due within two week after notification of acceptance in program. Payment will be done through Paypal.

This includes a  Nonrefundable material fee of $100.00 to pay for required readings and text.




Tuition Refund Schedule
Student who desires to withdraw from a course will send the instructor an email requesting withdrawal from the course. A student who is given approval to withdraw will follow the following Refund Schedule:
Opening Day: $360
2nd-3rd week of school $260.00
4th week of school  $150.00
After 5th week of school no refund

Circle or check the course(s) in which you
will register.


201(  )    202 (  )    203 (    )    204 (     )

205 (     )  206 (   )   207  (      )  208 (       )

email address___________________________

 You may take only two (2) courses each Quarter.


Uthman dan Fodio Institute

Complete application on following page. Return this page and the next to complete the application process. Make all money orders or certified checks payable to Clyde Winters. You can also pay via Paypal.

Non Refundable: $25 Application fee must accompany this application.




Monday, June 18, 2018

The Olmec Language is not Mixe-Zoque



Justenson and Kaufman (1985) popularized the idea that the Olmec spoke a Mixe-Zoque language.  This is false the Olmec spoke Malinke-Bambara, a Mande language spoken in West Africa today.
There are four problems with  Justenson and Kaufman decipherments of  Epi-Olmec: 1) there is no clear evidence of Zoque speakers in Olmec areas 3200  years ago, 2) there is no such thing as a "pre-Proto-Soquean/Zoquean language,  3)there is an absence of a Zoque substratum in the Mayan languages , and 4) the lexical items associated with Justenson and Kaufman’s decipherment can not be used to read the all the Epi-Olmec inscriptions.






   First of all ,Justenson and Kaufman in their 1997 article claim that they read the  Epi-Olmec inscriptions using "pre-Proto-Zoquean". This is impossible ,a "Pre-Proto" language refers to the internal reconstruction of vowel patterns, not entire words. Linguists can reconstruct a pre-proto language , but this language is only related to internal developments within the target language.
           Secondly, Justenson and Kaufman base their claim of a Zoque origin for the  Olmec language on the presence of a few Zoque speakers around mount Tuxtla.
Justeson and Kaufman maintain that the Olmec people spoke a Otomanguean language. The Otomanguean family include Zapotec, Mixtec and Otomi  to name a few. The hypothesis that the Olmec spoke an Otomanguean language is not supported by the contemporary spatial distribution of the languages spoken in the  Tabasco/Veracruz area.
      As mentioned earlier Thomas Lee in R.J. Sharer and D. C. Grove (Eds.), Regional Perspectives on the  Olmecs, New York: Cambridge University Press (1989, 223) noted that  "...closely Mixe, Zoque and Popoluca languages are spoken in numerous villages in a mixed manner having little or no apparent semblance of linguistic or spatial unity. The general assumption made by the few investigators who have considered the situation, is that the modern linguistic pattern is a result of the disruption of an Old homogeneous language group by more powerful neighbors or invaders...."
        If this linguistic evidence is correct, many of the languages in the Otomanguean family are spoken by people who may have only recently settled in the Olmec heartland, and may not reflect the people that invented the culture we call Olmecs today.
     In a recent article in  by S.D. Houston and M.D. Coe, asked the question “Has Isthmian writing been deciphered”, in the journal Mexicon .In this article Houston and Coe attempted to use Justenson and Kaufman’s Epi-Olmec vocabulary to  read the inscriptions on the Teo Mask and found that they were not helpful at all. They note that  “The text does not provide much assurance that Justeson and Kaufman are on the mark….Would not persuasive decipherment have led, as did Michael Ventris’ brilliant work on  Linear B or Tatiana Proskouriakoff’s on Maya, to compelling references to the context at hand , in this case a mask, or to its owner?”( Houston & Coe, 2003, p.159).
  The Justenson and Kaufman hypothesis is not supported by the evidence for the origin of the Mayan term for writing. The Mayan term for writing is not related to Zoque.
Soren Wichmann (2018a,2018b) has spent much of his time researching the Mixe-Zoque languages, confirming Justenson and Kaufman’s hypothesis that the Mixe-Zoque speakers were Olmecs, and the Olmec originated on the Pacific coast, where he situates speakers of Proto-Mixe-Zoque (Wichmann, 2018b).
     Wichmann (2018b) speculates that there were multiple Mixe and Zoque languages spoken in Chiapas between 1800-1600BC. He suggest that the speakers of Mixe-Zoque probably belonged to the Mokaya, Bara or Ocos cultures.
    There are several problems with Wichmann’s theory. First, there is no archaeological evidence linking the Mokaya, Bara and Ocos cultures on the Gulf Coast where the Olmec civilization began. Secondly, the Olmec appear 600-400 years after the decline of these cultures. Thirdly, the Olmec spoke Malinke-Bambara, which is a substratum language of the Mayan and Mixe-Zoque language families.
   Mayan tradition make it clear that they got writing from another Meso-American group. Landa noted that the Yucatec Maya claimed that they got writing from a group of foreigners called Tutul Xiu from Nonoulco (Tozzer, 1941). Xiu is not the name for the Zoque. But Xi, is the name for the Olmec people.


   Brown has suggested that the Mayan term c'ib' diffused from the Cholan and Yucatecan Maya to the other Mayan speakers. This term is  not derived from Mixe-Zoque. If the Maya had got writing from the Mixe-Zoque, the term for writing would be found in a Mixe-Zoque language.
             The fact that there is no evidence that 1)the Zoque were in the ancient Olmec land  3200 years ago, 2)there is no Zoque substrate language in Mayan,  3) you can not read the Epi-Olmec inscriptions using the  Justenson and Kaufman method, an 4) there is no such thing as "pre-Proto-Zoque" falsifies Justenson and Kaufman hypothesis.
    Brown has suggested that the Mayan term c'ib' diffused from the Cholan and Yucatecan Maya to the other Mayan speakers. This term is probably not derived from Mixe-Zoque. If the Maya had got writing from the Mixe-Zoque, the term for writing would Probably be found in a Mixe-Zoque language. The research indicates that no word for writing exist in this language.
There are a number of Malinke-Bambara loans in Mixe. The Mixe discussed in this section is Qaxacan, and include words ITom Mazatec, Chinantec, Mixtec and Chatino.
        The Mixe has surprising Malinke-Bambara loans. These loans presented in the Figure , include parts of the body, nouns for wind, house night and village, agricultural terms ( land of cultivation, maize, tomato) plus political terms such as lord, village and king.


     
       As among the Mayans, the Mixe like the Malinke-Bambara prefix their pronouns.  Mixe:
 n' 'me,
 m 'you;
yi, y 'he, she, it, the' n' amido:y "I ask" 
 y pe tp "he will sweep it'

       In Malinke-Bambara we would have a ba " his mother"; a be so " he is at horne', = 'she, he, it'.
Among the Malinke-Bambara loans in Mixe, there was full correspondence between the /t/,/m/  and /k/ in both languages. In other cases there was constrast between:


p             f


p             b


sh           s


t              d


c              s


n             m


c              t


The constrast between the Mixe /c/  and Malinke-Bambara /t/  is most interesting because we have also observed this same pattern in the Mayan languages. It also interesting to note that many Malinke-Bambara loans in Mixe that begin with the /s/ consonant have been nativized by changing this /s/,  just as the Yucatec speakers had done for their Olmec loans beginning with .
       It is interesting to note that the Mixe loan po' 'wind', is derived from Malinke¬Bambara fo/ po 'wind'. This is surprising because we find that in Mixe some words  with an initial /f/ are pronounced with a /p/  sound, e.g., pishka d 'highest dignitary', a  Nahuatl loan word.
       The Olmec appear to have played an importatnt role in introducing agriculture to the Mixe. This is obvious not only in the large number of loans for plants in Mixe, but also the term they use for cultivation.
     The Mixe make it clear that cultivation takes place on the humid bottom land they call ta : k kam . This Mixe word can not be explained in Mixe-Zoque. But when we look at this word from the perspective of the Olmec language we find that it comes from three Malinke-Bambara words ta ka ga 'this is the place of cultivation': ta 'place' , ka 'to be' ga 'terrain of cultivation, act of planting, to plant' . The loans in Mixe make it clear that they were probably hunter-gatherers when the  Olmec (Malinke-Bambara) speaking people carne to Qaxaca in search of minerals to make their giant heads and jade for their many artifacts.
     The Mixe appear to have used the loan ko 'head of something' , to construct many words in Mixe. For example:

Mixe                                        Bambara
 ko ca'ny 'chief snake'              kun-sa   'head snake'
kocu   'of the night'                    ku su      'head night'
kodung   'mayor                         ku(n)dugu 'head of land, chief

       The Mixe term for calendar priest or kushi is probably also a loan from Olmec. The Olmec (Malinke-Bambara) term for 'time' is sinye and san means 'year, sky'. This suggest that the Mixe term kushi 'calendar priest, head priest', may come from the combination of Olmec ko 'head' and sinye 'time' or ko-sinye 'head time (keeper)'.
       The Mixe nativization of ko-sinye > kushi , would not be too surprising, since the Mixe, if they were originally hunter-gatherers would have had no need for a person to record the seasons" a calendar priest', until they began the domestication of the crops  introduced to Qaxaca by the Olmec people when they settled the region to exploit the rich mineral deposits found in this part of Mexico.
        Finally, the widespread adoption of Olmec/ Malinke-Bambara lexical and grammatical features in the Mayan, Mixe and Otomi languages indicate a close relationship among the speakers of these languages in Pre-Classic Mexico. The shared diffused grammatical, lexical and phonological features discussed in this paper are probably the result from an extended period of bilingualism in ancient Mexico involving  the Malinke-Bambara speaking Olmecs, and their Otomi, Mayan and Mixe neigbors.
The Olmecs came from Africa. There is no evidence that the Olmec existed in Mexico before 1200-1100 BC.
The archaeological evidence suggest that the Olmec "miraculously appear on American soil". Some researchers claim that I am wrongly ruling out an “indigenous revolution” for the origin of the Olmec civilization. This is their opinion—the archaeological evidence, not I, 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 , 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)”. Pool admits (p.95), that “this conclusion contrasts markedly with that of the excavators of San Lorenzo, who reported dramatic change in ceramic type and argued on this basis for a foreign incursion of Olmecs into Olman (Coe and Diehl 1980a, p.150).”
The evidence presented by these authors make it clear that the Olmec introduced a unique culture to Mesoamerica that was adopted by the Mesoamericans. As these statements make it clear that was no continuity between pre-Olmec cultures and the Olmec culture.


The Olmec came from Saharan Africa. They spoke a Mande language. Evidence of this connection comes from the fact:

1)      both groups used jade (Amazonite) to make their tools. Amazonite was used in Saharan Africa. It was found at many sites in the ancient Sahara by archaeologists from the University of Chicago led by Soreno See: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2515196/pdf/pone.0002995.pdf   .They made adzes and pendants to name a few items in amazonite.
2) both groups made large stone heads. Here is an African head dating back to the same period.
3) The Mande came to Mexico in boats from the Sahara down the ancient Niger River that formerly emptied in the Sahara or they could have made their way to the Atlantic Ocean down the Senegal River.
 4) The Olmec writing points back to a Mande origin in Africa.
5) Olmec skeletons that are African.
6) Similar white, and red-and-black pottery.
7)The Mande speaking Olmec  introduced of the 13 month 20 day calendar.
8) Mayan adoption of the Mande term for writing.
9)Mande religious and culture terms adopted by Mayan people.
       The fact that 1) there is no archaeological evidence that the Zoque were in the ancient Olmec land on the Atlantic Gulf 3200 years ago, 2)there is no Zoque substrate language in Mayan, 3) there was no migration of Mokaya or Bara culture bearers from Chiapas to the Gulf, and 4) there is no such thing as "pre-Proto-Zoque" this falsifies Justenson, Kaufman and Wichmann hypotheses. The Olmec did not speak Mixe-Zoque. 


Reference:

Brown, C. (1991). Hieroglyphic literacy in ancient Mayaland: Inferences from the
linguistic data". Current Anthropology, 32 (4), 489-495.
Campbell,Lyle.(1977). Quichean linguistic prehistory .Berkeley : University of
California Press. University of California publications in linguistics. v. 81
Delafosse, M. (1899). Vai leur langue et leur systeme d'ecriture", L' Anthropologie
,10, .
Delafosse, M. (1955). *La Langue Mandingue et ses Dialectes (Malinke, Bambara,
Dioula). Vol I. Intro. Grammaire, Lexique Francais-Mandingue). Paris: Librarie
Orientaliste Paul Geuthner.
Grosjean, F. (1982). Life with two languages. London: Harvard university Press.
Hau, K. (1973). "Pre Islamic writing in West Africa, Bulletin de l'Institut
Fondamental Afrique Noire (IFAN), t.35, Ser. B no. 1, 1- 45.
Hau, K. (1978). African Writing in the New World, Bull. de l'IFAN,t.40 ser.B no.l,
(1978) pp.28 48.
Hammond, N. (1996). Inside the black box: defining Maya polity". In (Ed.) T. Patrick
Culbert, Classic Maya Political History (p.254). New York:Cambridge University Press.
Hock,H. & Joseph, B.D. (1996). Language history, language change and language
relationships. New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
     Houston, S.D. and Coe, M.D. (2003). Has Isthmian been deciphered? Mexicon, 25, pp.151-161.
      Justeson,S., William, N.M., Campbell, L, Kaufman, T.S., The Foreign impact on Lowland Mayan languages and Script. Middle American Research Institute, Publication 53. New Orleans: Tulane University, 1985.
     Kaufman, T. (1976). Archaeological and linguistic correlations in Mayaland and
associated areas of Meso-America. World Archaeology, 8, lOI-1I8.
     Romaine,S. (1995). Bilingualism. Oxford:  Blackwell.
     Scotton,C.M. & Okeju,J (1973). Neighbors and lexical borrowings. Language. 49, 871-889.
Sharer,RJ (1996). Diversity and Continuity in Maya civilization: Quirigua as a
case study", in (Ed.) T. Patrick Culbert, Classic Maya Political History, (p.187). New  York: Cambridge University Press.
     Swadesh, M. (1953). The Language of the Archaeological Haustecs.
     Swadesh,M. Alvarez, C. and Bastarrachea, JR (1970). "Diccionario de Elementos del Maya Yucatec Colonial. Mexico: Universidad Nacional Autonoma de Mexico Centro de Estudios Mayas.
     Tedlock,Dennis.(1996). Popol Vuh. New York: A Touchstone Book.
     Warkentin,V. & Scott, R. (1980). Gramatica Ch'ol. (Sene de Gramaticas de lenguas de Mexico, 3. Mexico: Instituto Linguistico de Verano.
      Weinreich,U. (1968). Languages in contact. The Hague: Mouton.
Wichmann, S. (2018a).A Mixe-Zoquean word of loan in Mayan murals of the Late Preclassic of San Bartolo , https://translate.google.com/translate?hl=en&sl=es&u=http://www.mesoweb.com/es/articulos/wichmann/Prestamo.pdf&prev=search
Wichman,S. (2018b). Possible linguistic and archaeological correlations involving the Olmec. https://translate.google.com/translate?hl=en&sl=es&u=https://www.rsuh.ru/upload/main/knor/binary/Olmecs.pdf&prev=search
      Winters, Clyde. (1979). Manding writing in the New World Part 1. Journal of  African Civilization. 1 (1 ), 81 -97.
     Winters, Clyde.(1980). Appendix B: The Jade Celts ITom La Venta". In Unexpected Faces in Ancient Americ~ by A. von Wuthenau (pp.235 237). 2nd Edition, Mexico.
     Winters, Clyde. (1977). The influence of the Mande scripts on American ancient writing systems", Bull. de I'IFAN, t.39, Ser.B no.2, 405431.
      Winters, Clyde. (1983). The Ancient Manding Script". In, Blacks in Science Ancient and Modern (ed) by Ivan Van Sertima (pp.208 214), New Brunswick, Transaction Books.
     Winters, Clyde. (1986). The Migration routes of the Proto Mande", The Mankind Quarterly, 27(1), 77-98.
       Winters, Clyde. (2005a). Decipherment of the Olmec Language.  Retrieved 08/19/05 at: http://olmec98.net/Rtolmec2.htm
        Winters, Clyde. (2005b). The Evidence of African Migration to New World and Olmec Religion. Retrieved 08/19/05 at: http://olmec98.net/nama2.htm
      Winters, Clyde.(2005c). The Olmec Kings. Retrieved 08/19/05 at: http://olmec98.net/olmeckings.htm
       Winters, Clyde. (2005d). Bilingual Mayan Olmec Text. Retrieved 08/19/05 at: http://olmec98.net/biling.htm
     Wulsin, (1940). Papers of the Peabody Museum of American Arcaheology and Ethnology, 19(1). Peabody Museum, Boston.