Talk:Olmecs/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

research

I'm researching on the Olmecs, so I have a few comments. 1. They had musical instruments. 2. They had many pyramids. Perhaps someone could elaborate? Especially on the pyramid part.

Genetics

I'm a bit puzzled by the recent additions of genetic studies; last I heard archaeologists had an unfortunate lack of Olmec skeletons due to such not being preserved in the harsh jungle soil. If the intended point is about something more general than the specific Pre-Classic Olmec, perhaps it belongs in some other article. Wondering, -- Infrogmation 04:56, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

Pulled out speculations

I've pulled out the content below, added by User:Roylee.

Researchers (see Universidad Complutense reference below) analyzing the genome of 6050 individuals of 59 different populations to arrive at a genetic heritage for present day Olmec people have concluded:

1. The Olmec people may be the ancestors of the Mayans.
2. Language studies (linguistics) and genetics do not accurately correlate in "microenvironmental" scenarios.
3. How people arrived in the Americas seems to be more complex than previously speculated, because present day Meso- and South American Amerindians show a genetic lineage in isolation from "all world populations (including Africans, Europeans, Asians, Australians, Polynesians, North American Na-Dene Indians and Eskimos). Significant genetic input from outside is not noticed in Meso and South American Amerindians according to the phylogenetic analyses."

Upon comparing thousands of ancient and modern skulls for over 20 years of study, University of Michigan anthropologists confirm recent archaeological and genetic studies indicating "that descendants of the first humans to enter the New World, including natives of Mexico, Peru, and the southern United States, have no obvious ties to any Asian groups" [1].

It is obvious that this text is meant to imply something. The earlier redaction makes the hidden agenda more clear, as it included the following: The questions facing researchers now are: If Meso- and South American Amerindians evolved in isolation from the remainder of the world, why are we still so similar ... genotypically and phenotypically? Obviously our similiarities stem from a common ancestor. But then how could the Olmec have reached Central and South America?

The problem is that Wikipedia articles should not imply anything. Wikipedia's job is only report facts, and not to cleverly combine 'recent studies' and cite them out of context to make articles say things that are in effect fringe theories. — mark ✎ 10:03, 20 May 2005 (UTC)

Hi mark, it seems to me that what Roylee would like to say is that the Olmec were descended from early West African explorers, who sailed over to the Americas and used their superior technology to create the first American civilization. Such a claim would seem to be consistent with the general trend of his broadly Afrocentric edits elsewhere. However, I think any reader less familiar with Roylee's edit-history would be hard-put to find any such implication in the words as they are given above. The earlier version was a different matter.

However, I agree that the edit should be held in suspesion until some things are clarified. As you know, the edit follows from Roylee's interpretation of the article he added as an external link. The relevant passage is as follows:

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.

While I can follow the first three points easily enough, I find the bracketed section about "all world populations" rather gnomic. It seems to say that Meso and South Americans are "genetically" unrelated to all other human beings in the world! I think we really need to have a clearer sense what the authors meant to imply by this assertion before we can use it. Paul B 12:48, 20 May 2005 (UTC)

Its also worth noting that North American Na-Dene Indians are believed to be a separate group from all Native Americans, including North American ones, so it is curious how that study in question claims the Olmecs are not related to the Na-Dene, but does not claim that they are not related to North American Native Americans, such as Ojibwe or Wampanoag. --Bletch 15:43, 20 May 2005 (UTC)

The were-jaguar

The extensive were-jaguar section occupied roughly a third of this entire Olmec article and was already discussed in the Jaguars in Mesoamerican culture article, so I pulled it out and moved it over there. It still needs a bit of smoothing over there, but that's the best place for it IMHO. In its place, I left a link to that and to the Olmec figurine article, which needs to be improved somewhat. Madman 04:37, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Empire?

Does the Olmec count as an empire?, or rather, where they migrants that settled into the region of Mesoamerica? Signor Pastrini 03:04, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Let's take the definition of "empire" at Empire: "Generally, an empire is defined as a state that extends dominion over areas and populations that are culturally and ethnically distinct from the culture at the center of power. Like other states, an empire maintains its political structure at least partly by coercion." If we use this definition, it is unlikely in my opinion that the Olmec were an empire. In particular, there is little evidence of militarism within the Olmec archaeological record. For example, Olmec ceremonial centers such as La Venta were not walled and few if any weapons have been found.

But then again, we still know so very little about the Olmec . . .

My 2 pence, Madman 07:02, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Splitting out Olmec alternative origin speculations??

How about splitting the Olmec "alternative speculations" off into a seperate article? I have no objection to having good NPOV coverage of persistant fringe views, but the subject is rather peripheral to actual discussion of what is known about the Olmec. BTW, I recall from Usenet discussions a dozen years ago and looking at a few of the hyperdiffusionist books in the library that there was also an "Olmec from S.E. Asia (Thailand & Cambodia)" argument. -- Infrogmation 13:54, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Infrogmation, my man, you must have read my mind. I was just thinking, after your recent re-org of the Alternative Speculations, that this section is becoming too large in relation to the "real" article itself. I would be happy to so this ASAP. Madman 15:01, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

I'd support such a move. The size of that section is getting too large. -- Rune Welsh | ταλκ 10:18, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Done. I pulled out the Olmec alternative origin speculations into its own article. You're welcome to rename the article, etc. Me? I would like to look up the references cited by the "alternative" editors, to complete the new article. Madman 21:36, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

I think it's a thankless task. Either they are ideologically driven kookery or misrepresentations. See, for example, this legitimate article cited by the latest anonymous contributor, a sentence of which was dragged from its context in a way that reverses its meaning [2]. BTW, it seems that User:Yom has personal experience of Clyde Winters. [3]Paul B 22:09, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Actually, in a message left on my talk page here, User:Olmec98 has signed as Clyde Winters, and so we may well be dealing with Dr Winters directly here. Whether this is so or not I can't tell, but I note that Winters' geocities page is at a url quite similar to this user's name (http://geocities.com/olmec982000/index.html).--cjllw | TALK 23:49, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

An honour indeed! Paul B 23:55, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

It would be very cool to have Clyde Winters contribute to Wikipedia. Madman 00:15, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, Dr Winters would be quite welcome to contribute here, and (if it is him) has been invited to do so. Naturally enough, the usual conventions and policies apply just as for any other editor here.--cjllw | TALK 02:22, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Note: I also moved this page's Talk/Discussion items related to the Olmec alternative origin speculations over to the new discussion page. Sadly, it seems that we spent a lot of time discussing those. Madman 21:50, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Madman. I think we should be able to improve on that article's present title, but right now I can't think of an alternative to 'alternative origin speculation'.--cjllw | TALK 02:22, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

I myself don't think this is a great article title either, but I couldn't think of a better one (either). Madman 02:48, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

To be honeest I don't think it deserves even that. It might be a footnote in an article about afrocentrism, but I feel that we are doing exactly what Olmec98/Clyde Winters wants: get his message out to a larger audience. He already seems to have articles on all the free webservers out there and now he even has´his name mentioned on wikipedia. Maunus 07:18, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Alas, there's probably enough of this material floating around that we will have to deal with it here sooner or later. I think quarantining these into the subarticle is a more attractive approach. And as long as where mentioned conceptions such as this are presented in the appropriate context with counterevidence and the extent of their (lack of) academic support is made clear, then we may even be doing the general reader who has come across these speculations a service.--cjllw | TALK 08:10, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

I think that someone should cite the research of Ivan Van Sertima in one of the books he wrote about all the tons of evidence about pre-Columbian African explorers in that area. It's not to say that Olmecs *were* African-- just that there was an influence. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.24.149.132 (talk • contribs)

Go for it! Grab yourself an ID. Become familiar with Wikipedia policies and norms. Add content. Madman 21:32, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Unknown French reference ?

You don't know French edition User:Madman2001 ? This book, by Magni Caterina (2003) Les Olmèques. Des origines au mythe, is famous and it's a reference about Olmec civilisation like Coe or Diehl. Try to read it before change this reference. I think that we must know who writes on the olmec civilization and not to see only the English books in the reference. It's my opinion. 80.94.110.52 13:06, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

No, I have never read that book, largely because I don't understand French beyond a very basic level. And certainly this book was never used as a reference for this article. And I don't know enough about this book to trust an unknown person with no other edits in the English Wikipedia who just tosses it into the article without even bothering to format the entry properly. So I removed it.

I'm still wondering whether or not to remove it. Thoughts, fellow editors? Madman 14:20, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Olmec "schools"

I removed the below recent addition and moved it here to talk. Some of it is unclear, possibly from being a translation, and it at least needs some cleaning up. -- Infrogmation 17:16, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

I replace it with correction. Olmeque 17:30, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Second school

Olmec culture remains unknown until second half of the XIXe century. The specialists are agree to fix the beginnings of the first Mesoamerican civilization in 1862 with the fortuitous discovery of the first colossal head at Hueyapan (Veracruz) by María Melgar y Serrano. Today, according to the French school promoted by C. Niederberger and recovery in particular by C. Magni, the olmec culture seems a multi-ethnic unit and pluri-linguistics which extends from 1200 BC to about 500 BC on a vast part of the Mesoamerica. Its presence is attested on old levels of occupation on the Coast of the Gulf, in the Basin of Mexico City and along the Pacifique coast in the States of Guerrero, Oaxaca and Chiapas. Beyond the Mexican borders, we find artefacts olmec until the south of Costa Rica. Among the major centre, we can quote : San Lorenzo (Veracruz), La Venta (Tabasco), Chalcatzingo (Morelos), Teopantecuanitlán (Guerrero) and Abaj Takalik (or Takalik Abaj) in Guatemala.

Hi Olmeque, good to see some european interest in Mesoamerican studies. However I think that your additions are a little out of place, as well as slightly controversial. The part of the article you edited was about the history of the Olmec culture, not about the scholarly history of olmec studies. The inserted part seems to be a first draught to the history of olmec studies emphasizing recent french research, this should go in another part of the article, also while you do refer to the researchers it would be nice with some exact references to books and pages where the information is found. Also you probably should solicit grammaticval assistance from native english speakers before adding the material to the article in English. I do think that your contribution is of use, only that it should find its correct place in the structure of the article. Maunus 18:15, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

I made a very stubby start at a "History of scholarly research on the Olmec" section and moved the "school" material there, as that seems the relevent place. -- Infrogmation 19:04, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

I wonder if this editor is our friend 80.94.110.52 who is determined to list his French language book in our References, and has been to a number of other Wikipedias (e.g. German, Italian) with the same mission. I will not speculate on his/her motives. See Talk section above this for our exchange. Madman 19:07, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks very much Infrogmation and Maunus to help me about this part of article that I was edited. The references to books and pages are in Footnotes. Olmeque 22:18, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

French school

Controversial French school ? Certainly no. It's a new point of view by eminent specialists. Olmeque 23:04, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

I am taking a cue from Maunus, above, and using the words he used: "slightly controversial". In fact, the vast vast majority of Internet hits on Magni are in French, which to me says that her influence is marginal. Niederberger is certainly better known but is still not at the level of Stirling or Covarrubias, who are barely mentioned in the article. Moreover, the consensus among scholars is that the Olmec culture was not "a multi-ethnic unit and pluri-linguistic culture covering a vast part of the Mesoamerica". We need to say that in the article, and if you have a better word than "slightly controversial", I would be happy to use it.

I also removed all the descriptions of the places where Olmec artefacts have been found. These sites are listed and well-described elsewhere in the article, and the sentence I added references those spots. We need to keep this article smooth and cohesive, and a paste-up of multiple writers' own mini-articles.

Thanks, Madman 23:33, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

You haven't to judge the competence about authors who have published like Nierderberger in French, English and Spanish. You have created an article whith some arguments and French school is recognised not only in France but in the others Europeen countries and also in Mexico. The descriptions that I write are necessary for understand the French school's point of view. If we want to keep this article smooth and cohesive we must know the History of scholarly research on the Olmec in its globality and in an exhaustive way. Olmeque 00:02, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

If this "school" is recognized, please show or cite, preferrably on the Internet, an article that actually uses the words "French School" (in whatever language) to describe this theory.

I have re-inserted "slightly controversial". If you don't like this, I again extend the offer for you to suggest some other phrase that shows that this theory you are promoting is outside the mainstream. Madman 00:40, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

You don't know current events about the Olmec ? The Mesa Redonda Olmeca (Round tables Olmec) in March 2005 gathered the searchers most qualified to discuss and compare new findings in the field. Most recently the 52º International Congress of Americanists in July 2006. Olmeque 01:40, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Olmeque, I have moved your section on Niederberger and Magni out of the "History of Research" up into the section that details the widespread Olmec influence and aleady attempts to explain it. Hope you like it. Madman 02:10, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

I like it but the descriptions that I write are necessary for understand the French school's point of view against the others theories. I put it on. Olmeque 08:58, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes, you are insisting that your exact words, and only your words, should appear in the article. This is not the way that Wikipedia works. You need to accept that your words can be and will be edited.

I have removed the term "French School" as there is apparently no support outside Wikipedia for this term. Again, I ask that if this "school" is recognized, please show or cite, preferrably on the Internet, an article that actually uses the words "French School" (in whatever language) to describe this theory. Thanks, Madman 13:16, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

It's amazing ! I ask an arbitration. I tell you again the descriptions that I write are necessary for understand the French school's point of view against the others theories. Probably you don't know current events about the Olmec. You need too to accept that your words can be edited if you are wrong and you are wrong to insist in this way. Olmeque 17:08, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Arbitration

I believe I am the one responsible for the label "French school". The earlier edit refered to it as "Second school"; I provisionally retitled it "French" as that seemed more descriptive. I was not trying to start a neologism. Is "second school" the accademic term for this group of researchers? -- Infrogmation 15:30, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Infrogmation, you have the one write the label French school but it's right. In France a revue name Science & Vie speak about this against the other theories. Here the reference and here again. Olmeque 17:42, 29 August 2006

Infrogmation, perhaps you can establish a way to mention Niederberger & Magni's non-mainstream theory in a way that fits the general tone and structure of the article. If we are going to mention this at all (personally I don't think we should), I believe that we should not use a lot of "ink" (creating an entire section devoted to this theory is IMHO definitely too much) and should state that this is not the consensus viewpoint. Madman 15:36, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

I should point out that Science & Vie is a scientific magazine aimed at the general public, and is not a scientific journal or magazine for specialists of the issue. David.Monniaux 16:09, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

I suggest that Niederberger and Magni be mentioned en passant in the "Beyond the heartland section" but without making an entire section on a french school. As far as I am aware there are various scholars with different proposals but not a "french" or european "school". And also I agree with Madmanthat using Olmeque's exact wording is not necessary for the understanding of the topic, but rather detriment to it. In short make short mention of Niederberger and Magnis proposal, but no "french school". (What does Diehl write about Niederberger in the section on the research history? I know he mentions her, but I havent the book at hand to check what exactly. Anyway he gives a balanced treatment of the subject and I think it should be the basis for our treatment of the scholarly history.)Maunus 21:50, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

The French school is a reality but I understand your view. I think that you should be read book in French about Olmec culture or in Spanish. Olmec are not only understand by American's researchers. The article Mother Culture, or Only a Sister ? had been cited in the french scientific magazine Science & Vie for showing the way inspired by French school. Olmeque 23:32, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Diehl (see Reference in article) has 5 references in his "Further Reading" and mentions Niederberger 8 times within his text:

• 3 of these times mention and refer to Niederberger's theory that civilization is the result of the rise of cities, and cities have six characteristics. He goes on to measure San Lorenzo against those 6 characteristics (I can write them out if you wish; pretty standard stuff IMO).
• 2 of these times mention her as a excavator of the archaeological site.
• Twice he states Niderberger's interpretation (of the Tlapacoya volcano & art objects).
• And finally Diehl says that "Niederberger believed that Teopantecuanitlan only attracted the attention of the Gulf coast Olmecs after emerging as a regional power, pointing out that while its public art imitated the Olmec models, the rest of the culture had indigenous roots." (his emphasis, p. 170).

This last statement seems to be at odds with what Olmeque has written about her theory.

Pending resolution of this, I have removed the "French" section header. It is a neologism and gives higher importance to whatever-theory-this-really-is than it seems to deserve. Madman 03:54, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Working toward resolution I

I thought I'd continue with this theme and write a survey of various theories of why Olmec influence was strongly felt outside the heartland.

• Karl Taube, "OLMEC ART AT DUMBARTON OAKS", 2004, p 60 says "The intentional distribution of Middle Formative Olmec art and iconography out of the Olmec heartland probably was related to the acquisition of exotic good"

• Coe Mexico: From the Olmec to the Aztec, (1994 4Ed), p80-81 sees "a powerful unitary religion which manifested itself in an all-pervading art style."

Add additional ones if you have them, folks. More from me later, Madman 04:21, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

While I think that it is quite reasonable to say that there are divergent views within current academic thought on the nature, extent and direction of cultural influences which may be described as "Olmec" or even more generally "Olmecoid", I'm not so sure that these various conceptions are referred to in terms such as 'school' or 'camp', or that these differences are split along regional lines eg European vs American scholars, or whatever. At least, I've not so far encountered such a distinction or widely-used labelling of the ideas or adherents, other than informal usage.

Olmeque, perhaps it might help if you were to clarify in other terms what is meant by your paraphrase of Magni and Niederberger's position as holding that: "the Olmec culture is a multi-ethnic unit and pluri-linguistic culture covering a vast part of the Mesoamerica"; this could be interpreted a number of ways and it's not clear to me what exactly a "multi-ethnic unit" may be. If their position is something like saying that artefacts from beyond the Gulf Coast region which have been identified as Olmec/Olmecoid are not just the products of some unitary culture spread from a 'heartland', but instead have as much to do with the cultures of those more distant regions as does any centralised influence, then that is something quite similar to the view put in the paper by Flannery, Marcus et. al. cited in the article. If so, then Magni and Niederberger's position running counter to the 'spread from a (dominant) Olmec heartland' view (ie 'anti-mother-culture') is not a unique one.

I agree though that "Olmec" can be a rather rubbery term (terrible pun, I know) which like other modern collectivisms like 'Aztec' and 'Maya' can sometimes obscure finer distinctions which are seen to have existed, when used uncritically. We could probably do a better job of explaining this in the article. --cjllw | TALK 12:47, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

I am very happy that you raise this point CJLLW, it is important to happen that the Olmec culture is not a culture than is really comparable to other mesoamerican cultures of which we have ethnohistorical sources. It is a kind of "hypothetical"-culture based solely on extrapolations from archeological remains. So to say the "olmec were" or the "olmec lived" it is a truth with modifications: what can truly be said is that "artefacts showing features which we have chosen to define as belonging to a culture we call "olmec" suggests that ...". Maunus 16:19, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

In fact Magni and Niederberger's position are differents than the others because Niederberger since the beginning of the Seventies was the first to find that olmec metropolitan zone was a unit multi-ethnic and pluri-linguistic, covering a vast part of the Mesoamerica. This is written and published of course. At that time Flannery (spoke about the counter commercial and matrimonial alliances) and Marcus's position were for the olmec metropolitan zone. But only for a few years their positions changed and they speak today in a sister-culture. The French school promoted by Niederberger and Magni said that Olmecs are covering a vast part of the Mesoamerica and are the mother-culture. About Olmec culture "which is not a culture that is really comparable to other mesoamerican cultures of which we have ethnohistorical sources". We have others sources and I am surprise to read this. I suggest you reading this in Spanish. Olmeque 23:59, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

I am puzzled about your restatement of Niederberger's position, Olmeque. Diehl says that "Niederberger believed that Teopantecuanitlan only attracted the attention of the Gulf coast Olmecs after emerging as a regional power, pointing out that while its public art imitated the Olmec models, the rest of the culture had indigenous roots." Yet you imply that Niederberger thinks that Olmec culture (you mention "Olmec metropolitan zone" but I believe you mean culture) is broader than just the heartland and is as much in home in Teopantecuanitlan as it is in, say, La Venta. Madman 00:41, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Olmec metropolitan zone it's in spanish Zona metropolitana olmeca. In fact they are in this area La venta, Tres Zapotes, San Lorenzo y los Tuxtlas. The Olmec culture covering a vast part of the Mesoamerica, in the period from 1200 BC to about 500 BC. Niederberger said that presence olmec is attested on old levels of occupation on the Coast of the Gulf, in the Valley of Mexico and along the Pacific coast in the States of Guerrero, Oaxaca and Chiapas. And olmec artefacts are found south to Costa Rica. Olmeque 01:16, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

You can read this pages to Niederberger in « Olmec Horizon Guerrero », in E. P. Benson y B. de la Fuente (eds), Olmec Art of Ancient Mexico, National Gallery of Art/H. N. Abrams, Inc., Washington/New York, pp. 95-103 and in « Mesoamerica: Genesis and First Developments », in A. H. Dani y J.-P. Mohen (eds), History of Humanity. Scientific and Cultural Development, II. From the Third Millenium to the Seventh Century BC, UNESCO/Routledge, París/Londres, pp. 462-475. Olmeque 01:24, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes, the Zona metropolitana olmeca seems to what we, in English, refer to as the Olmec heartland.

"Niederberger said that presence olmec is attested on old levels of occupation on the Coast of the Gulf, in the Valley of Mexico and along the Pacific coast in the States of Guerrero, Oaxaca and Chiapas." I would agree with that. That's more of a fact than a theory, in my opinion. Madman 01:27, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Olmeque, I think perhaps that you misinterpret what Maunus means by "...not a culture that is really comparable to other mesoamerican cultures of which we have ethnohistorical sources". All that we do know of the "Olmec" is based on interpretations of archaeological findings and associated iconography. Cultures which are reconstructed this way ('archaeological cultures' or complexes) have a different hue than those for which we have actual ethnohistorical data as well. Contrast the situation of the Olmec with the various nahua and maya peoples- for these we have (in addition to archaeology and iconography) actual contemporary descriptions of their cultural practices, states, and beliefs, data both from the spanish and themselves, from written and oral sources which experienced these cultures directly. For the Maya we even have their own written records going back well over a thousand years, while for the Olmec we do not have even a second-hand semi-mythological description or traditions of them from another Mesoamerican culture, either their contemporaries or successors, unlike for example the Toltec - Tula. ("Toltec" is another rather ill-defined term, of which we should be more astute in our descriptions here).

For such as the Olmec, Maunus is right to point out that even their very existence as some unitary or identifiable people is a presumption; one borne out of reconstructions which are along lines of "these objects/buildings/artwork/pottery found here and here, and then and then, seem to be similar or of a like kind: therefore, we suppose some particular group/state/people existed to make them as such". Of course it is quite a valid thing to postulate on the archaeological evidence, but it's another thing to take that reconstruction for granted. And whatever Magni, Niederberger and others might have to say about the Olmec, they do not do so from direct ethnohistoric evidence.--cjllw | TALK 03:51, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Removed Niederberger reference for lack of verification

Update: I have spent some time researching Niederberger and I have not found that Niederberger has any overall Olmec theory apart from the general fact that Olmec influence was present throughout most of Mesoamerica during 1200 - 500 BCE. I have therefore removed the reference in the article to Niederberger. Anyone is welcome to cite or, better yet, quote a source stating something different. As a result of this research, I have added some specific references to Niederberger in the Teopantecuanitlan articles. Madman 00:16, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

You'll must read better. Niederberger had not write "I have a theory" to understand something ! Olmeque 10:58, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Hi. Niederberger has a fine article on her work at Tlatilco and Teopantecuanitlan in Clark,J.E. & Pye, M.E. (Ed.), (2000) Olmec Art and Archaeology in MesoAmerica( Washington, D.C.: National Gallery of Art). In this article she discusses the Olmec influence at these sites but I did not read anything about a new theory relating to Olmec origins and etc.Clyde Winters 15:13, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your posting, Dr. Winters. I agree. Madman 15:33, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

You have read only that about Niederberger ? Excuse me but it's not enough. Some references :

- « Olmec Horizon Guerrero », in E. P. Benson y B. de la Fuente (eds), Olmec Art of Ancient Mexico, National Gallery of Art/H. N. Abrams, Inc., Washington/New York, pp. 95-103

- « Mesoamerica: Genesis and First Developments », in A. H. Dani y J.-P. Mohen (eds), History of Humanity. Scientific and Cultural Development, II. From the Third Millenium to the Seventh Century BC, UNESCO/Routledge, París/Londres, pp. 462-475.

- « Paléo-paysages et archéologie pré-urbaine du Bassin de Mexico », Centre d’études mexicaines et centraméricaines, coll. « Études Mésoaméricaines » I-11, México, 2 vols.

If you want more reference you can search on internet.

I know your theory for the African origin of the Olmec people and certainly Niederberger can't believe in this. And you can't believe in her theory ?! I am not astonished. Then I cannot agree with you and with Madman. Olmeque 20:40, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm still looking for a specific reference that Niederberger has a theory about Olmec origins that is outside the general consensus (which is that most of what we classify as "Olmec" originated in the Olmec heartland, and that the Olmec influence was felt throughout Mesoamerica during the period 1200 - 500 BCE). For example, in your first article above (the "Olmec Horizon Guerrero" article), Niederberger's position is that the Olmec influence in Guerrero originated from the heartland, and was relatively weak compared with the indigenous Guerrero culture. From my research, Niederberger supports the "sister culture" viewpoint, but this is hardly anything developed by her or Magni. Could you please provide us with such a quote, citation, reference that supports your viewpoint? Madman 00:07, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

From your research Niederberger supports the "sister culture" viewpoint ???!!! It's amazing. You must search better. Olmeque 13:03, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

You have all citations and reference in « Paléo-paysages et archéologie pré-urbaine du Bassin de Mexico » by Christine Niederberger. I can't read for you and I have explain my viewpoint about this. Olmeque 11:52, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Pointing a bibliography does notthing to support your position, Olmeque. You need to provide specific quotes from or general paraphrasing of Niederberger, or folks may start to believe that you are drawing the wrong conclusions or even making things up. Madman 12:28, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

You have a problem and it's not my fault. You don't know something about Olmec culture and you want to do the professor. I suggest you another couple of conclusions about your mind. Olmeque 12:42, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Olmeque, you are not arguing or explaining your point. yYou are repeating the same phrases over and over, presenting only references to books thatare not easy to come by, and not supplying any quotes that would allow us to surmise whether your interpretation is correct. The burden of proof is on you I am afraid since those who disagree with you, while possibly mistaken, constitute the majority. That you know resort to personal attacks does not help your argument.Maunus 13:36, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

All right but I think you want to understand nothing. When you had possibility to discuss you did revert continually. I wrote sentences about Niederberger it's not mine. I give you reference for justify this. What would you want again ? If you write on Wikipedia an article about Olmec you must know researchers which have studied and published on Olmec culture. However you know neither the foreign researchers nor new events on the olmec civilization. Olmeque 17:22, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Need better statement of Magni's position

Olmeque, perhaps it might help if you were to clarify in other terms what is meant by your paraphrase of Magni position as holding that: "the Olmec culture is a multi-ethnic unit and pluri-linguistic culture covering a vast part of the Mesoamerica"; this could be interpreted a number of ways and it's not clear to me what exactly a "multi-ethnic unit" may be. If their position is something like saying that artefacts from beyond the Gulf Coast region which have been identified as Olmec/Olmecoid are not just the products of some unitary culture spread from a 'heartland', but instead have as much to do with the cultures of those more distant regions as does any centralised influence, then that is something quite similar to the view put in the paper by Flannery, Marcus et. al. cited in the article. If so, then Magni and Niederberger's position running counter to the 'spread from a (dominant) Olmec heartland' view (ie 'anti-mother-culture') is not a unique one. an earlier request from User:CJLL Wright, reposted by Madman 00:56, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Who are you a teacher or a student ? I said something clearly if you don't want understand it's your problem. You have reference to verify if you want. It's amazing ! Olmeque 11:00, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Olmeque, we are not talking about here a case of "not wanting to understand". Rather, I think that your re-statement in written english of Magni's views is perhaps not as clear as you may think, and hence my earlier request above for some further clarification from you. For example, the expression "multi-ethnic unit" in this context is confusing and ambiguous- perhaps here you are making some direct translation of Magni's formulation from the french, which does not readily transpose to the same meaning in english, though without ready access at present to Magni's original it is hard to tell. "Unit" implies, well, unity or all of a kind - so as used here is it supposed to mean that Olmec is not a single ethnic group/people but rather a term for a culture shared between various peoples/groups? It would make a difference in the interpretation.--cjllw | TALK 07:02, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

I had explained about this and it seems be clearly : "The Olmec culture is a multi-ethnic unit…" or constituting several ethnic groups. Olmeque 13:09, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

So, to sum up then what I understand you to be saying about Magni's (and/or Niederberger's) position and use of the term Olmec (and leaving aside for the moment the issue of whether or not this constitutes some sort of influential "french school" of thought on the matter):

1. "Olmec" refers to a pan-regional, shared culture or set of traits, evidenced by the commonality of artefact design and iconography recovered for much of the region in this time period (ca. early 1st millennium BCE)
2. A number of different and dispersed ethnic/linguistic groups or peoples participated in this "Olmec culture", which was not necessarily the product of one particular people or disseminated from a single region or zone.
3. In particular, the Gulf Coast sites (San Lorenzo, also Tres Zapotes, La Venta) identified by others as forming an "Olmec heartland" are not to be thought of as such, and even that the societies which built them were pluralistic and diverse. Rather, they are to be seen as significant, but not the only, centres of Olmec culture.
4. The Olmec culture as thus described can be seen as the progenitor culture ("mother-culture") which has greatly influenced contemporary and successor cultures.

Olmeque, is this more or less how you read those sources? To me, apart from #4 and possibly part of #3 it seems not far off the position maintained by Flannery, Marcus, Grove et al contra to the "heartland-mother-culture" views of Caso, Covarrubias & Coe, for eg.

Perhaps as a way forward we should work on outlining just what exactly are the various ways in which the label Olmec is applied- to refer to the builders (ie as a people) of San Lorenzo, or of the wider Gulf Coast sites as well, or as a shared culture embracing sites further afield, or others.--cjllw | TALK 08:32, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Working toward resolution II

Thanks for this new discussion cjllw. The French school promoted by Niederberger and Magni said that Olmecs are the mother-culture. But Magni and Niederberger's position are differents than the others because Niederberger was the first to find that olmec metropolitan zone was a unit multiethnic, covering a vast part of the Mesoamerica. About Covarrubias his position on Olmec's origin was in Guerrero and I think it's Coe and Diehl who have spoken on the "heartland-mother-culture". Flannery and Marcus's position were for the olmec metropolitan zone. But their positions changed and they speak today in a sister-culture. Can you explain this ? Olmeque 22:01, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, as far as I know Flannery & Marcus have for a while now championed other sites (in particular San Jose Mogote) as contemporaries of San Lorenzo which produced their own distinctive archaeological complexes, and so I do not think that their "sister cultures" interpretation is a recent one. In fact, as far back as the 1967 D. Oaks conf. on Olmec culture, Flannery's presentation highlighted the contemporary advances in the Oaxacan highlands which he saw as being non-deriviative (although perhaps not as sophisticated as) of the Olmec Gulf Coast region, and that there was mutual trade, benefit and influence. At the same conf. Bernal put forward a hypothesis that "Olmec culture/style" could be seen as really the first cohesive expression of Mesoamerican cultural synthesis (ie multi-ethnic & pluri-lingual), of which he says "...in Mesoamerica we are faced with a single civilization, that was born with the Olmec world, that continues, with changes of course but not really basic changes, all through Indian history until the sixteenth century." So Niederberger probably does not have the prior claim (if that is her view), and debate on nature of Olmec culture goes back probably to the thirties.

Be that as it may, I think that what this article needs is to go beyond the simple dichotomies of the "mother- vs sister-culture" and "heartland vs diffusionist" debates, as there are subtleties to these which we need to better describe. We also need to be more careful in distinguishing between use of Olmec when the source intends it to mean a shared culture or techno-complex, and when the source means a people or group.

I'd propose first a rewriting of the lead paras, which I'll attempt and put here to see what I'm driving at. Mention of Magni, Niederberger & all the other varying takes can then be worked into the succeeding narrative once we have sorted out the basic terms and scope.--cjllw | TALK 04:16, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

A word of caution about rewriting the lead paragraph in the article. I believe that we need to continue to ensure that the lead paragraph "The Olmec were an ancient pre-Columbian people living in the tropical lowlands . . . " is accessible to all readers. Having two school-age kids myself, for example, I know how much Wikipedia is relied upon by that demographic. That's not to say that the lead paragraph can't be improved, but only that it's probably not the place to "go beyond the simple "mother/"sister" dichotomies etc, although I would indeed look forward to having that in the article somewhere. Thanks! Madman 12:28, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Page protection

There have been many reverts on this article during the past few days. I have protected the page until the content dispute is settled here. I have no opinion on the subject itself and the current content dispute. -- Rune Welsh | ταλκ 12:55, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

There is an enormous amount of vandalization on this page that for whatever reason can't be edited by me even though it's very visible on the actual page. I'm not sure how it appears on the page if I can't see it, but it's there. Someone please do something about it.--LCastus 00:34, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

The page is not currently protected; you should be able to edit it. I don't know why it has gotten multiple vandalisms (has there been some pop-culture reference to the Olmec recently?), but I and some others are keeping an eye on it, and it can be reprotected if things get too bad. -- Infrogmation 02:37, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Recent Discovery in New World Writing

I just wanted to note that a recent news item (reported by NPR) describes the following significant Olmec-related discovery: "A heap of debris taken from a quarry in Veracruz, Mexico has yielded a stone block inscribed with what appears to be the oldest writing ever found in the Americas." Tobogganoggin 03:12, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Very cool, Toboggan Noggin!! This is the first real glimpse at a possible Olmec script. (Me, I don't count that supposed cylindrical glyph from 650 BC.). Here's a better article. Anyone around here have a subscription to Science magazine?? If so, try this. Madman 03:31, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Here's another story regarding the find. [4] Interesting stuff. deeceevoice 18:55, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

See Olmec hieroglyphs where I have also put a couple of other references. Evertype 22:16, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Added citation needed on Niederberger

I added a {{Fact}} template after the claim that Niederberger has promoted this particular "school of thought". In my research, I have not found a single instance where she formulates this concept. I look forward to seeing a particular citation. Thanks, Madman 04:04, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

I added pages about French School promoted by Niederberger. --Olmeque 18:58, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Invention of Zero

I don't think the invention of the zero deserves more than a passing mention here. There can be a cross-reference to 0 (number)#History of zero. As far as whether Long Count examples existed outside the Maya homeland, we need a cite to back up whichever version of the story is presented. Cbdorsett 06:33, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree that no more than a passing mention is needed -- I'm presently working to keep/make this a survey article and there's a lot more material (e.g. on agriculture & diet, history of studies) that is needed. I added the cross-reference as suggested and tried to make the sentences more Olmec-specific. Do the present two sentences qualify as a "passing mention"?

Also, I don't see the apparent contradiction. Could someone be more specific? Thanks, Madman 11:17, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

It already got deleted. But we need a cite still - are examples of long count to be found outside the Maya area or not?

We need one sentence talking about the Long Count calendar, with a citation, and a second sentence mentioning the hypothesis that the Olmecs may have invented it, with its own citation. If there is no such citation, then the sentence should be omitted completely. If the Olmec had nothing to do with the Long Count calendar, then I don't see any reason to include mention of it in this article at all. Cbdorsett 12:02, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

I tried again to clean up the paragraphs, and merged the calendar & zero sections for better flow. Regarding citations, there already is a citation on the "artifacts with the 8 earliest Long Count dates were found outside the Maya homeland", and the image shows the second earliest Long Count date, which was found on an artifact at Tres Zapotes, an Olmec site. Let me see if I can improve the citations. For example, I've often considered writing an article specifically detailing the location of these eight artifacts, with map if possible - would that help? And speaking of help, thanks for your help, Madman 14:58, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

One possibility would be to create an article like List of Long Count monument dates or List of Mesoamerican stelae by Long Count date, and start accumulating data in a tabular format (which could be arranged either in pure chronological order, or region/culture then chronological, or both). Maybe also a List of Mesoamerican sites with Long Count inscriptions alphasorted could be useful too.--cjllw | TALK 00:44, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Minor Grammar Mistakes

Under "History of scholarly research on the Olmec":

"However early Mesoamericanists at first assumed the Olmec were likely no earlier than the Classic era."

This should probably be edited to:

"At first, early Mesoamericanists assumed that the Olmec existed no earlier than the Classic era."

Also, is "Mesoamericanists" even a word? Would "historians" be better? I have no time to check. Please institute this change, since the page is locked for editing.

24.218.175.211 18:39, 18 March 2007 (UTC)Nintendud

Mesoamericanists is a word and it includes not only historians but archeologists, anthropologists, linguists, historians and whomever else might specialize in ancient and modern Mesoamerica.·Maunus· ·ƛ· 12:02, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Protection

Is there any good reason to leave s-protect going? I know this page gets whacked by alternative theories but we shouldn't be leaving protection on for months at a time. Marskell 09:30, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

It's not so much the alternative theorists but the schoolboys. For whatever reason, this article seems to be a special target for the typical juvenile graffiti. Madman 11:57, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't think it's worse here than at other pages. I'd say drop the protection - maybe Richard Diehl himself is planning to contribute anonymously tomorrow... graffitti we can just revert.·Maunus· ·ƛ· 12:00, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Alternative Origin Speculations

I made a change referencing the racism in western scholarship, which has played a role in downplaying the possibility of the Olmecs having African ancestry. It was reverted by Madman, because I wasn't clear. I said "may" to allow them the benefit of the doubt, i.e. to be more "PC" about it. But racism most certainly DOES exist in western scholarship, and it certainly does play a role. Re-inserted my edit. Godheval 13:23, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

I reverted it again. Making such a claim requires references to an incredibly good reliable source. You have made none and as such it can only be seen as a piece of opinion. Saying that racism most certainly does exist in western scholarship is only a statement of opinion. Proposing that this is the reason modern scholarship has refused to accept claims about african origins of the Olmecs is even more so. It cannot go in the article unless referenced to a reliable source. ·Maunus· ·ƛ· 15:25, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

It is not merely an opinion. Racism is well documented throughout the whole of western scholarship, in many cases, not just with the Olmec. See the article ABOUT the alternative origin speculation linked from this page, and you will see examples. You seem to be of the opinion that such racism simply does not exist, or at least that it did not effect scholarship, which is not only ignorant, but absurd. I like how you say that it requires "an incredibly good reliable source", as if for anyone to DARE point out the fact of racism requires more evidence than any other fact. Give me a break with that blind white neutralist nonsense. This is kind of argument people make that institutionalized racism doesn't exist, that it's all a product of hypersensitive imaginations. Anyway, as for my particular claim, I will find specific sources soon. For now I've tagged the comment to indicate that citation is needed. Better that than to disavow the claim altogether as if it has no merit, when anyone with ANY knowledge whatsoever of history and western scholarship knows of the role that racism has played in them. Godheval 17:55, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

This article is about the Olmecs not about western scholarship. If you cannot cite a reliable source stating explicitly that the cause of established scholarships not taking the african origin speculations seriously is racism then the claim does not belog here.·Maunus· ·ƛ· 18:01, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

I understand what you're saying and I am not trying to change the article into one about western scholarship. I just want to better contextualize the discussion on the possible African ancestry of the Olmecs. If there are arguments for or against it, then the biases of the people on either side need to be taken into account. I'd be just as willing to hear arguments that the idea of African ancestry for the Olmecs is a product of some sort of Neo-afrocentrism movement. I wouldn't necessarily doubt it, and like you, I'd want citations. And I'm working on that - may take a few days to find a non-internet source (since anyone can slap a webpage together). Godheval 18:12, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Your last edit is acceptable. I did write it as a statement of fact, which I shouldn't have done without a source. Ironically, I'm not a proponent of the this African ancestry theory (but nor am I a detractor), as I'm more inclined to believe that the physical commonalities between "ethnicities" demonstrates the fallacy of using such categorizations in the first place. Rather than the common traits indicating that the Olmecs are of African origin, I'd rather think that it shows that there are far fewer differences between even the most disparate groups than people wish to believe. Godheval 18:28, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Good, we are in agreement then.·Maunus· ·ƛ· 19:03, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

This is an article about the Olmec and therefore more than a sentence or two concerning these way-out-of-the-mainstream theories belongs in the Olmec alternative origin speculations article, which discusses these matters at more length. In fact, I don't even think that the most recent wording belongs in this article, but in deference to Maunus's opinion, I won't revert.

And this is certainly a strange argument: that it's racist to champion the overwhelming evidence that indigenous peoples created the Olmec civilization rather than African immigrants. To me, it's quite the opposite - that the folks who push African origins are pushing a racial viewpoint.

In any case, you are welcome to add referenced material to the Olmec alternative origin speculations. Madman 19:34, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

You're confusing two separate issues. The argument is not on who created the Olmec civilization, i.e. Olmecs alone or Olmecs with outside help, but on the biological makeup of the Olmecs themselves. The kinds of racist scholars I'm talking about are the ones who on one hand would dismiss the possibility of African ancestry for the Olmecs because it implies that they had the technology to reach the "New World" before Columbus - and no way brown people beat white people to the punch on anything! - while at the same time dismissing the merits of the Olmec civilization, instead attributing their accomplishments to outside (even ALIEN) interference. Godheval 21:55, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

So, you're saying that there are "scholars" who attribute Olmec civilization to outside or alien "interference"?? There is absolutely no mainstream Mesoamerican scholar who makes such a claim. Madman 23:50, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

It's not as common now. May have only been a few loonies out on the fringe. But yeah, that kind of thing was going around. And even if not to the extremes of Aliens, the idea that there had to have been outside interference for these "primitives" to have built such great works - was indicative of the racism of the time. Godheval 15:36, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

There has to be a source or citation on this, if not stop adding it. Point being if you can not back up your claim, please refrain from re-adding it in the first place. There should be no "citation needed" tags because this is nonsense. You have not provided any valuable sources on your comments.Xuchilbara 02:16, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Said the self-proclaimed authority on citations. We reached an agreement here, and so the comment with remain. I will provide citations soon, as I've already said. If you want to make it a revert war, then by all means. But you're not going to come in here and just change something by your own "authority", ignoring the conversation that has taken place thus far. You're no one. Screw yourself. Godheval 00:49, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

I have read your previous convo and I'm not ignoring it. Have you forgotten Assume Good Faith, No Personal Attacks, Neutral point of view, and Cite Your Sources rules? "Screw yourself" is not a good arguement and discredits you. Xuchilbara 01:34, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

You're right, it's not a good argument. Nor was it one. I was, explicitly, an attack. I prefer that method to the more covert style of attacking that goes with power-playing on Wikipedia, such as maintaining a racist argument to be a "consensus" without adequate support (in recognized scholarship, not internet advocacy), while demanding citations for anything to the contrary. I'm not interested in all of the Wikipedia "rules", while oligarchic article-policing continues to occur. Spare me. Godheval 06:12, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Discourgaging personal attacks as being unconstructive is hardly something unique to the 'wikipedia ruleset', so I don't see what you are hoping to achieve by resorting to one. Just stick to the topic at hand, I'm pretty sure if you were to look into the writings of van Sertima or Diop you'd readily find a source for similar statements that the rejection of their 'African influences on Olmec' hypotheses by mainstream Mesoamerican scholarship are due in some measure to the view that Africans should never have been capable of such a thing. Even so, this in no way proves or disproves that there is any actual bias there as a motivating factor, and it should not be stated as such in the article.

Equally, when contemporary Mesoamericanist sources explain that on the contrary, the discounting of African influences comes down to a complete lack of convincing material and linguistic evidence for any pre-Columbian Africa-Americas contact, there should be no characterising of this consensus as 'racist argument', even if van Sertima et al claim it to be.--cjllw | TALK 08:36, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

This is the last thing I'm going to say about this. I'm tired of arguing with oblivious people. Nowhere did I say that everyone who argues against the African origins theory is approaching it with a racist predisposition. I said that there certainly is racism in Western scholarship which has in some cases been the motivating factor. Frankly, if you think that NO ONE was motivated by racism, then you're a fool. I'm done. The institution wins. Again. I'll still search for those sources, but if in the meantime you want to disavow all knowledge of racism in Western scholarship, be my guest... Godheval 14:28, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

I think focusing on the racism matter is too much of a debate for this article. I'm not denying it happened. It just does not belong here as much. There's alot more recent scholarship anyways, that is not motivated by racism. Xuchilbara 01:27, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

---

Over a decade ago Winters (1979, 1997) deciphered the Olmec writing and discovered that you could read the Olmec inscriptions using the sound value of the Vai signs. The Olmecs spoke and aspect of the Manding (Malinke-Bambara) language spoken in West Africa (Winters, 1979, 1980, 1981,1984). There is some controversy in the article which makes for interesting reading. For some startling pictures of the Olmec heads see www.dudeman.net/siriusly/ac/mex.shtml and scroll down. Tom 04/17/07

The site that I referenced for pictures seems to be down. Perhaps it will come back up soon. Tom 04/17/07

We are acquainted with Mr. Winters, and his supposed deciphering. And we have all seen the colossal heads.·Maunus· ·ƛ· 13:28, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Consider this thought. Archeologists often give chronology and event history to the Olmecs. Discerning their influence of the Mayans and the Aztecs. They cite there knowledge of mathematics and astronomy yet claim that they can't discern their language when it is suggested that they might be of African extraction. It seems that they have a lot of information on the Olmecs for their language to be so misunderstood. I believe that Mr Winters isn't the only one who understands their language. He's one of the few who will admit it. Even you said "supposed deciphering" because you don't want them to be of African extraction either. If their language is misunderstood then every thing that's been written about them is speculation at best. Archeologists can't have it both ways. As it appears, they look like Africans and they wrote like Africans. If it looks like a duck... Tom 04/18/07

Eh? Archaeology is primarily concerned with reconstructing cultures from the physical remains left behind -monuments, structures, alterations to the environment, etc- and so knowing what language they spoke is not a prerequisite to being able to describe or date a culture. There are rather many antique cultures for whom we have simply no evidence what language or language family was spoken, but are identified on the basis of their material cultural remains.

The simple fact is that the identification of a resemblance (let alone an actual translation) between Mesoamerican and African or any other script is not supported by Mesoamericanists, and Wiener and Winters are very much on the outer in maintaining there is one.

Incidentally, most of the New World inscriptions they put forward as encoding some African language are not actually associated with the time period and localities associated with the culture which built those colossal heads, and are quite a few centuries later. For eg, the Tuxtla Statuette bears a date equivalent to one in the 2nd century CE, nearly a thousand years later than the period in which the colossal heads were made. Until the dating published last year of the Cascajal Block find, the only inscriptions associated with the period and region of the colossal heads (ie, the Olmec, as opposed to epi-Olmec or another successor) consisted of a handful of isolated glyphs.--cjllw ʘ TALK 02:47, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

I would like to also add that the same celts (from Offering 4 at La Venta) that Winters believes show Vai characters have been interpreted by another scholar, Chen Hanping, as showng Chinese "Shang dynasty" characters. However, Mesoamerican scholars find that the celts in question were once part of a larger piece which showed more typical Olmec iconography. Madman 03:33, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

That's funny, because that would validate the genetic study that showed the ancient Linzi population were closer to Turks, Germans and Icelanders rather than the current populace. Closer to the Tocharians, who were like celtics. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.206.195.109 (talk) 02:14, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

You can actually be looking at black people and declare to yourselves and to black people that what appears to be black people isn't really black people. You also declare that unless some non black person (i.e. scholar) declares them black people then they are not really black people. I guess we only get to be black people when you do declare it. You actually discredit black people from being able to identify themselves. White people seem to hold the self appointed priviledge of defining a people whether those people want to be defined by them or not. Christopher Columbus discovered the New World even though there were people living in it for centuries with a history older than his own. Sir Isaac Newton discovered Gravity even though apples have been falling from trees for centuries. How pompus can you be? Black people don't care if a non black person ever declares the Olmecs to be black. We know what they were and they knew what they were. It doesn't matter if they spoke Chinese or Mandie anymore than it matters that I speak english. If white people don't know that these were black people, then they'll just not know. Whether non blacks are scholars or not, educated or not, respected or not, published or not, means nothing to black people if they cannot identify black people when they are looking at them. We are as self defined as any other people on this planet. Tom 04/20/07

Er... self-defined? Seriously? Curious, then, that the living descendants of pre-Columbian Mesoamerican peoples themselves do not at all self-identify in this way- so just who then is 'pompously imposing' a racial identity from outside, if not van Sertima and his ilk? The indigenous peoples of Mesoamerica are most certainly not clamouring to be identified as black African descendants, as any review of the organisations they form to promote their cause as native/indigenous Americans will soon show.

We of course have absolutely no data on what race or ethnicity the Olmec themselves identified as, so here too you are very wide of the mark. Far from attracting any sympathy from the peoples themselves, this attempt to supplant their own indigenous Mesoamerican heritage with a foreign one has, on more than one occasion, been called racist itself [5][6]--cjllw ʘ TALK 03:42, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Ah Tom, you're at it again I see. Given up on the Egytians have you? Paul B 00:19, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Hi Paul, I can never give up on the Egyptians with all of the Archeological evidence that exists. Many of todays Egyptians don't look like the Egyptians of ancient times. But the ancient times and there artifacts still exist to identify the ancients. There's been a lot of race mixing since then. The same thing has happened to the Olmecs. If not for race mixing, all of the Olmec descendants would still look like them. Of course with the Olmecs the race mixing started right away with the people who lived in Mexico at the time. Not identifing with an earlier black heritage is the same as not being of Olmec descent. Tom 04/24/07

Have you seen photos of Natoive MesoAmericans? Paul B 09:20, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Paul remember me saying that this debate only comes up when blacks have been a significant influence on an ancient culture. Somehow whenever an ancient black appearing influencial culture is discussed, it is doubted that they were as black as they appear. There black appearance is made out to be a fluke. Is this not true? Somehow they have to be unblackened for the internal comfort of modern non black scholars. Why is that? Tom 04/24/07

Err, no. This is Central America. The people who live there are not Africans. If you want to call them black, then that's up to you. They do usually have darker skin than Colin Powell, for example. But just remermber that that's quite different from claiming that they are African. "Africans" are in Africa. "Black" is a colour. There are dark skinned people in lots of places in the world. Paul B 15:11, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Paul if a Greek person travels the world he's still Greek. a native Scandinavian is a white person where ever he lives. These people called Olmec (which is not what they called themselves) look Black African, built pyramids and spoke what has been identified as a West African dialect. They have Black African features as profound as any that can be found on the planet Earth. If they were Originally from Mexico and thrived there for centuries unmixed, I believe that there would have been more than 17 heads with pure Black African features. The heads even seem to be dated around the same time. I believe that this could suggest one or maybe only a few generations. Supporting again, the belief that they sailed here. The heads are all male, which leads me to believe that all of their offspring were probably of mixed race with the local females. Although probably rulers in Mexico they may have left Africa as warriors, which would explain why they were all male. We know through archeology that they understood astronomy and mathematics which enables oceanic navigation. But more than that, it is just unpopular to believe that these Africans navigated the Ocean 2000 years before Columbus. That is the real threat of believing that they were African. I have on vhs a debate between a Mexican and American Archeologist where the Mexican is describing them as "Negratos". The American Archeologist describe them as having enhanced features. I guess she feels that they were accidentally African in appearance. I'll scorge my tapes and get this guys name so that we can talk about him. Also to cjllw above. Their is no greater data that can exist to determine the race of the Olmecs than the heads themselves. Archeologists just don't like the data that they have and yet can't erase the data that they have. So they attempt to make their most profound data irrelevant. I've dubbed it the Ray Charles Syndrome. Tom 04/24/07

This is idiotic. Just because you in 2007 think that stylized stone heads look "African" does not mean that their (note the spelling) ancestors came from Africa. Do you think that people in Southeast Asia are descendents of Africans? They typically have wider noses and larger lips, too. I think the usual view is that those features, as well as darker skin, are adaptations for warmer climates. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.242.114.108 (talk) 14:37, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Of course Southeast Asians are descendants of Africa. Every ethnic on this planet is descended from Africa. DNA studies have proven this. The Olmecs were just closer to their African roots, where Scandinavians are not. Perhaps you should read Leakey's or Mendel's findings on genetics. Tom 04/23/08

Arbitrary new section break 1

Earlier there was a discussion about the need for a citation for racisim in Western Scholarship, Lies My Teacher Told Me by James W. Loewen, is a good one. There is also a good discussion in Loewen's piece here about why this discussion of the Olmecs is so contentious. A suggested change for the 'alternative origins' section: it is problematic that the framing of this section is laden with the POV that the 'alternative origins' is a known discredited position. In truth, it is a hotly debated topic as the discussion above shows. A person who finds the 'alternative origins' argument plausible should be given the space to make their case in this section. It would make for a more representative discussion--Justinda1970 (talk) 13:04, 17 November 2007 (UTC).

There is an entire article devoted to this issue: Olmec alternative origin speculations. Thanks, Madman (talk) 13:30, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I meant that the introduction to the section is problematic. It poses that the reasons that there are 'alternative origins' are because the Olmecs were critical players in Mesoamerican history or because so little is known about this civilization. This is the type of marginalizing of scholarship supporting the role of African peoples in world history that has been consistent since the period of enslavement (see the introduction of Martin Bernal's Black Athena, Vol 1). In truth, the initial reports on the archeological findings prominently mentioned the negroid features of the heads (as the discussion you linked to notes), so the reason there is a heated competition among theories is because of the physical evidence of the heads themselves and their similarity to findings in Kemet/Nubia. This is why I think you (Madman) have been so criticized for attempting to control the discussion and why there has been a call to unlock the page. The section would be more accurately entitled "Competing Theories" rather than 'alternative origins'. I would agree with Tom and others who have said/implied that the reason for the argument is not because we are so dedicated to what happened more than 3000 years ago, but because what it means for how we view the world today. You are entitled to your opinion that the Olmecs were not of African descent, but this discussion is central to how we view our history as Americans and should be allowed to fought out in the public space (with citations of course). For another look at this issue, I would suggest Tony Browder's "Nile Valley Contributions to Civilization"--[[User: Justinda1970|Justinda1970]] (talk) 14:03, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

There is no similarity to "findings in Kemet/Nubia", nor is there any attempt to marginalise "scholarship supporting the role of African peoples in world history". This is not in any way a mainstream view and its popular prominence is entirely due to modern US race politics. However discussion should be on the "alternative" page. Paul B (talk) 16:07, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Just writing 'there is no similarity' using euphemisms like 'mainstream' and just stating 'there is no attempt to marginalize' doesn't hold water. Dr. Sertima outlines a number of similarites as does Alexander von Wutheneu, a longtime German Art Historian. Again, for folks who would like to see another take, look at Browder's work and his sources/logic. One thing Browder points out well is the relative arbitrainess of the positions on this issue from such folks as the former head of Yale's Anthropolgy Department, Dr. Michael Coe. I would argue the race politics are playing out right here as some have the capacity to define Wikipedia's 'official' position (is that not an oxymoron?) and some do not... Just as a point of information, can someone explain to me who had the authority to lock the page and how they got it? thx!--Justinda1970 (talk) 17:25, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

In fact Wurtheneu wrote (in 1969) "The earliest figures encountered were those with Mongoloid characteristics, and all kinds of white people, especially Semitic types with and without beards". (!!!) That's the kind of "evidence" you are referring to. You are simply quoting Afrocentrists with an ideological agenda. None are specialists in mesoAmerican culture. This article should rely on specialists. Take discussion to the other page. I will not reply any more on this page as it is already to full of fring material. Paul B (talk) 17:33, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

If others would like to take a look at Wurtheneu's for themselves please go here[7]

Here is an excerpt of Wurtheneu's comments when asked to speak to a conference in Dakar, Senegal

"I told them (the attendees) that up to a certain point we had listened over and over again to the story of deportations of African slaves from Dakar, but that I, on the contrary, was showing them the nobility of Black Rulers who had their portraits carved in colossal stone monuments on American soil. Furthermore these distinguished overlords had made a tremendous cultural impact on the New World almost than 3000 years ago."

Wurtheneu's comments were made in 1966 some twenty years before the word Afrocentricty entered, but he is part of a long line of scholars of both African and European ancestry who posed substantive critiques of scholarship minimizing the role of African people in world and western history. For those who are interested, look for the work of Gerald Massey who wrote "Ancient Egypt the Light of the World" or John Jackson's "Christianity Before Christ". This marginalizing of scholarship has an agenda of its own and whenever someone does not like someone's POV they frequently scream "agenda" (think the debate on global warming). Just saying someone is an Afrocentric scholar does not discredit them, it just labels them, you still have to do the work of looking at the evidence and proving that it is without substance. In the case of the Olmec Heads, there are literally tons of evidence (one was found to weigh 18 tons). To continue, just saying that someone is not a specialist in a field does not mean that their argument is without merit--take a look at Kuhn's discussion of The Structure of Scientific Revolutions [8]to see that often it is often "outsiders" that push a field forward because they can see past the cliche. The community would be benefited by a more even handed treatment of this topic and it should not be locked as it is making the issue appear more settled than it is. Again, who has locked this page and who gave them the key?--Justinda1970 (talk) 22:55, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Hi. Any Administrator around here can, and from time to time does, protect an article against persistent vandalism, edit warring, and other unconstructive behaviours that significantly impair the article's stability. In this case, the article was protected against a recent peak in schoolboyish vandalism activity of the "Hello. I like poop." variety, and not (in case you were wondering) as a means of preventing newcomers from adding info re supposed African similarities or anything else. Indeed, we've had folks like Clyde Winters himself editing here and discussing the articles' approach to this issue, and as pointed out earlier there's already several mentions and separate articles devoted to various diffusionist theories. There's no arbitrary exclusion going on, these counterviews are represented in wikipedia's articles, although properly only in relative proportion to the viewpoints' degree of acceptance and currency. Please see in particular the subsection on undue weight in the NPOV policy.

I quite disagree that "Competing theories" would be a more accurate title, than "Alternative origins". It is not the case here that there are several more-or-less equally supported interpretations of the collective evidence undergoing active debate in the field. On the contrary, there is a single and overwhelmingly maintained interpretation (viz., that the Olmec & other Mesoamerican cultures developed indigenously and quite without influence from or exchange with cultures in Africa, Asia, etc), and any viewpoints that postulate otherwise are distinctly and numerically minority, marginalised, and fringe accounts. However you wish to describe them, it's not mere sophistry to distinguish mainstream from non-mainstream interpretations, but necessary to provide the complete picture.

Characterising this as a 'hotly debated topic' is also a bit misleading- that debate is not taking place within Mesoamerican scholarship, and is not a point of contention among Mesoamericanists. There are genuine hot-topic debates within the field, such as over the degree and nature of Olmec influence over other Mesoamerican cultures; but not whether they were Africans, Lamanites, Atlanteans, etc.

Although it may be well publicised in some quarters, the 'Olmecs-were-Africans' contention is nowadays nigh-on exclusively carried on by proponents from outside the field. While (as you note) this doesn't by itself invalidate the claim or their credentials, it does have a bearing on how an encyclopaedia should approach the state and degree of scientific consensus on a topic. Where notable enough, we can describe what these alternative views are, who holds them and the evidence cited in support (and against), without however misleading the reader by giving the false impression that the question excites any support from researchers active in the field.

In any event, since it's been a few weeks now I've unprotected the article, on assumption that vandalism interest in this as a target has had time to drop a couple of notches from intolerable down to tiresome and merely annoying. If it picks up again the article may be reprotected; any edits on alternative origins etc can be adressed and discussed on merit, hopefully. Please do read through the prior discussions here first, which includes development of an operating consensus that this main article is not the place to delve into the details of any of these alternative claims. --cjllw ʘ TALK 03:25, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Altar 5 from La Venta depections in this article

While I understand the need to keep image numbers lower in articles, I feel given the controversy and lack of terribly conclusive evidence on sacrifice that perhaps another other side of Altar 5 from La Venta should be depicted along with the side with the limp were-jaguar (the other sides depicting lively ones).

The depiction of one in the article and not the other (even though linked under the picture quite unprominently) can skew a casual reader's interpretation on sacrifice unfarily favoring one without seeing the whole picture.

Given that this is supposed to be encyclopedic, I personally think both should be depicted. 63.19.9.221 04:15, 25 June 2007 (UTC)V168

The question is to what extent the Olmec practised sacrifice (they at least practised bloodletting - autosacrifice), and so the image of Altar 5, which is very famous in its own right, goes along with the text, and provides a very prominent link to the side photos. Moreover, I don't know that the carvings of the "lively" were-jaguar babies on the side necessarily argues against infant sacrifice -- they could just be the "before" pictures and the carving on the front is the "after" picture.

But, in any case, I wasn't trying to argue one way or another, but just mentioning the question. I didn't think the question of sacrifice was "controversial", just unknown. Madman 04:05, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Deleted this portion

"The only other ancient culture known to have achieved such high temperatures is that of Ancient Egypt."

• 1. Because this is flatly untrue. Many other cultures achieved ceramic temperatures just as high or higher.
• 2. The source provided has no references to only Olmecs achieving 900'C temperature for ceramic firing along with Egyptians.

Intranetusa 02:50, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Fine with me. I often wondered about that "fact", but it wasn't high on my list to investigate. Appreciate your attention to detail, Madman 04:05, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Semi-protected

At the the suggestion of User:Nunquam Dormio, I have indefintely protected this article due to the high levels of vandalism by unregistered editors. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 08:07, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

The Olmecs of Afro-America

[removed lengthy personal essay in supposed support of Afrocentrist origins, which was added by 70.240.252.121 (talk) 20:16, 15 October 2007 (UTC)]

Anon 70.240, article talk pages are supposed to be used for discussion on ways and means of improving the article itself. Talk pages are not venues to list random forked personal essays and alternative POVs. If you wish to argue for the inclusion of some particular piece of information, then fine; but posting chunks of unaddressed pseudo-article text on talk pages is improper use - see in particular the WP:FORUM policy.--cjllw ʘ TALK 00:12, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3