Customer Reviews

Early America Revisited

5 star:		(5)
4 star:		(1)
3 star:		(0)
2 star:		(0)
1 star:		(1)

 

 

In the l970's Ivan Van Sertima came out with his ground breaking book "They Came Before Columbus." In this book he put forward the theory that Africans came to America before Columbus and the "European Age of Exploration" in two major waves. The first wave was when the Egyptian/Phoencians crossed the Atlantic between 1200B.C-800B.C this wave influenced the "Mother Culture" in the Americas known as the Olmec Culture.The birth of pyramid culture and the African phenotypes found in the colossal stone heads bear witness to their arrival.

The Second Wave of Africans who came to America before Columbus were the Mandingos of Mali who set sail under the guidance of their king Abu Bakari the brother of the famous Mansa Musa. Abu Bakari set sail with a fleet of 2000 ships. This story is recorded in the rare Arab works "Al-Qalqashandi" and "Masalik el absar fir Mamelik el Amsar" this exploration took place around 1310A.D.Many scholars rallied to attack Van Sertima for his unconventional theories. Out of all the scholars who attacked "They Came Before Columbus" three stand out they are Bernard Ortiz de Montellano, Warren Barbour, and Gabrial Haslip-Viera. Those interested in purchasing the book "Early America" be warned it is not a new version of "They Came Before Columbus." Early America was written as a response to critizism leveled against They Came Before Columbus.

Van Sertima is very technical and meticulous in his book Early America, no stone is left unturned. In order to prove Africans made contact with the Americas before Columbus he provides many examples there are too many to mention here in this brief review, so I will touch on two or three. He has Bart Jordan a mathmatician and child prodigy of Einstein show us the mathmatical parallels between pyramids in America and those in Egypt. He also elaborates on the botanical evidence of South American cocaine found in African mummies made famous by the toxicologist Dr. Balabanova, New World crops found in the Old World before Columbus is only possible if contact was made between Africans and Americans. He also highlights African/Egyptian rituals that originated in Africa but are strangely enough found in America. We have the Egyptian "opening of the mouth" ceromony found on a wall painting in a cave at Juxtlahuaca. There is also the cross libation ritual found in a Mexican Codex this ritual is definitely Egyptian in origin all scholars know that the Gods Thoth and Horus always baptised the Pharoah with cross libations. The Egyptian use of the leopard skin(animal skin) in ritual is also found in Mexico as well as the double crown worn by the Pharoahs with the bird and snake the bird representing Upper Egypt and the Snake representing Lower Egypt. The mythos of bird attacking snake is an African mythos based on indigenous African animals like the Secretary Bird of Africa a famous snake killer one can see the parallel between this and the Mexican god Quetzacoatl when broken down linguistically Quetzacoatl means bird and snake.

Ivan Van Sertima is one of those rare underappreciated scholars whose work is too advanced for its time. Van Sertima's scholarship will only be acknowledged in another lifetime by another generation of scholars much like Copernicus and Galileo followers of Van Sertima's theories will find out that convention is hard to change.

In 1976 Ivan Van Sertima published They Came Before Columbus: The African Presence in Ancient America. 22 years later in 1998, "Early America Revisited" was "fueled out of an anger at the dishonesty of my critics and an overwhelming desire to set the record straight." It sheds new light on numerous evidence of pre-Columbian ocean crossings. (He also edited African Presence in Early America in 1987.) As such, he also answers directly back at specific critics, even including correspondence and an interview with him in the appendix, which gets a bit repetitive and may not be everybody's cup of tea.

I read the 2007 paperback edition. I am not really enthused about the quality of the pictures, though I have seen worse. Additionally, according to one caption, some pictures may be seen in color. Obviously in other editions. Which is a bit sad, since especially one such picture represents an ancient Egyptian definition of phenotypes. Not only by skin color, but also by facial features (as in principle, it is a bit gamy to draw skin color conclusions from Egyptian paintings as they may represent symbolic religious meanings instead of phenotype).

In other words, this book isn't only about Africans in the Americas, but about Black Africans in Egypt. It is mentioned that civilization began in Nubia, with the first pharaoh being a Nubian one.

Van Sertima avers that Ancient Egyptian isn't a Semitic language, but an African one. However, there are other African centrist scientists who say, Semitic languages ARE African, in fact that Arabic is derived from ancient Egyptian. The Africans Who Wrote the Bible suggests that all belonged to the African group of peoples, together called the Akan, today mostly known in West Africa. The VERY unorthodox author Ralph Ellis suggests that the Hyksos weren't invaders, but inherently Egyptians after a religious schism. He has written an entire series about that, starting with Jesus: Last of the Pharoahs. (In one of his later books, though, he re-turns them into migrants after all.) Last not least concerning my criticism, I would like to mention that I don't really comprehend Van Sertima's division of pre-Columbian Blacks in the Americas from the Native Americans. To me, that is defeating the cause. Whenever they had come, most certainly they integrated into the Native Americans, unseparable.

However, most of the book is excellent, in a five star manner.

A word on the unrelenting deniers of pre-Columbian contacts: I find it funny that for decades they disputed any claims of Black phenotypes among the Olmec stone heads etc. Now, when this and other arguments have been lost to the general public in favor of Van Sertima & partners in mind, they turn around and claim: Yes, they were Black, but they were coming from Asia. What exactly is the decisive difference, from which direction the Africans came? (Not to leave the impression that any one way excludes the other.) Taking into account that African presence in early Asia had been denied as sick. Talking of which: Van Sertima co-edited African Presence in Early Asia and edited African Presence in Early Europe (Journal of African Civilizations). By now, there are numerous scientists/authors who have written about pre-Columbian voyages to the Americas, including to and from Europe. Next time of losing the debate, the anti-Africanists will probably claim: Yes, they were Black, but they were really Europeans.

Do I need to mention, that we are ALL Africans, because we are all derived from Africa, some of us merely having turned pale(r) along the way? And that the entire humanity completely remixes in less than 2 millennia?

For those interested in further books about pre-Columbian voyages to the Americas should check out the even more controversial The Lost Treasure of King Juba: The Evidence of Africans in America before Columbus, Voyages of the Pyramid Builders: The True Origins of the Pyramids from Lost Egypt to Ancient America and in the German language the very recommendable Bevor Kolumbus kam which doesn't limit itself to African voyages, but EVERYBODY'S. It would be easier to list who DIDN'T travel to the Americas before Columbus came last (which is similar to yet another book's title). Fascinatingly, there is this much evidence around that the intersection of identical evidence used in these various books is very slim. As such, it gets ever more uncomprehendable that some people, however fewer they may get, undeterred keep up the torch for Columbus being the first. He himself denied that. Period.

Ivan Van Sertima is one of the greatest minds living today, despite the fact that, at an early age he lost half of his brain. Van Sertima clearly destroyed all of his critics in this book, in every individual circumstance. If you are of fan of his first book on this subject, "They came before Columbus," or you have never heard of Ivan Van Sertima, you will deeply be convinced that "BLACK'S WERE CO-CONTRIBUTERS TO THE BEGGINNING OF THE ANCIENT AMERICAN CIVILIZATION." This book verifies this by rituals, customs, and many other things, too lengthy to be said here. In the end, when reading, blacks open your eyes and ears to the information presented, and objective whites, "LOOK AT THE EVIDENCE, NOT THE COLOR OF THE PEOPLE WICH THIS BOOKS TRIES TO GIVE CREDIT."

Dr. Van Sertima delivers again. I highly recommend to all -- from the serious scholar to the simply curious.

This Book is basically an answer to all the Critics of Ivan Van Sertima's Early Work (They Came Before Columbus). He sets the record straight that black people were in America before Columbus with mounds of evidence. I urge people to read this book. The racists hate all the truth in this book.

Another excellent work by Van Sertima! He investigates information from several disciplines to examine Pre-Columbian America. His notes/references are extensive as usual. Early America Revisited should be in every library, if not in every High School history classroom, right beside They Came Before Columbus....

Length:: 6:13 Mins

This video is a rebuttal to some of the claims made by Van Sertima (and Clyde Winters on the side) but primarily Van Sertima in his three books, They Came before Columbus, Early America Revisited, and African Presence in Early America (Which he co-authored with other hyperdiffusionists and afrocentrics). I read all three to get a better grasp of what was being claimed. Neither Van Sertima or his contributors are primary researchers. None studied archaeology, linguistics or anthropology to any degree to claim expertise in the subject. In fact what they do is comb other people's research and/or writings in search of any quotes they can use to support their theiories. They are both known for using outdated, refuted, and even misquoted studies and to ignore statements in later studies or even IN THE SAME STUDY or the SAME AUTHOR which categorically rebutt these Pseudo Historian's claims.

Since the first migrations across the Beringian coastal regions, archaeological and anthropological evidence has spoken of a population that migrated from Asia and would be the founders, not only of modern Native Americans, but also of modern Asians. As Asia has shown diversity that spans from Australian Aborigines and Melanesians to South Asians to the Siberian Yupik. These same phenotypes have been reflected in Native American morphology. Since the first studies of ancient skulls like Peñon woman and Luzia we have seen a morphological continuity that spans many phenotypes and is still in existence today. Olmecs show this variety of phenotypes in their sculptures. Excavations in nearby Tlatilco have shown similarity in phenotype to modern Native Americans as well. In all excavations sundadont and sinodont populations have been found and neither of these dental patterns exist in African populations that means they developed in populations that had already migrated out of Africa, and could not exist in either Egyptian or Mande populations. Since Luzia and Peñon woman to the extinct Pericu, and the modern Huichol, Fuegians, Botocudos, Xingu, Moche and others, the thick lips and features seen in Olmec sculpture and modern Native populations have always been there. They are not an import from another continent but direct descendants of the earliest Paleolithic people on the Asian continent who migrated to the Americas. Olmecs were products of the Americas.

A better version of this video exists in the reviews for Van Sertima's paperback version of"They came before Columbus". I uploaded a smaller flv file her but the other one is a better quality wmv file.