Talk:Olmec

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).
This article falls within the scope of WikiProject Mesoamerica, a WikiProject interested in improving the encyclopaedic coverage and content of articles relating to pre-Columbian Mesoamerica, its civilizations, history, accomplishments and other topics. If you would like to help out, you are welcome to drop by the project page and/or leave a query at the project's talk page.
Some shared resources and guidelines for editing Mesoamerica-related articles: (click "show" to expand)
NB: Assessment ratings and other indicators given below are used by the Project in prioritising and managing its workload.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the Project's quality scale.
Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the Project's importance scale.
WikiProject Mesoamerica priority open tasks: (click "show" to expand)


Wikipedia CD Selection Olmec is either included in the 2006 Wikipedia CD Selection or is a candidate for inclusion in the next version. Please maintain high quality standards, and if possible stick to GFDL and GFDL-compatible images.

This is the talk page for discussing changes to the Olmec article.

Please sign your comments using four tildes (~~~~). Place comments that start a new topic at the bottom of the page and give them ==A Descriptive Header==. If you're new to Wikipedia, please see Welcome to Wikipedia and frequently asked questions.

Contents

[edit] 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.

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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. —The preceding unsigned comment was 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)


[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] Added citation needed on Niederberger

I added a [citation needed] 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)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../o/l/m/Talk%7EOlmec_0b8a.html"