Talk:Olmec alternative origin speculations

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	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.
Resources and guidelines for editing Mesoamerica-related articles: Guidelines— Outline of suggested guidelines and editing conventions References— Selected resources and compendia of Mesoamerican sources and studies Citations— Bibliography and pre-filled citations for Mesoamerican sources Worklists— Project worklists and activities
NB: Assessment ratings and other indicators given below are used by the Project in prioritising and managing its workload.
Start	This article has been rated as start-Class on the Project's quality scale.
Low	This article has been rated as low-importance on the Project's importance scale.
WikiProject Mesoamerica priority open tasks: (click "show" to expand) WikiProject Mesoamerica Open Tasklist: a shortlist of things you can do to help out. Queries welcomed here. (Project Main • Activities • Catalogue • Guidelines • Strategy• Tools and refs) edit | watch | purge NEWS and ANNOUNCEMENTS: → Mesoamerica, Mayan languages, Olmec, Palenque are WP:MESO collaboration targets of the moment. → Pre-filled citation templates for Mesoamerican sources at Citations. → Recently promoted to GA status: Yuri Knorosov, Nahuatl language, Charles Etienne Brasseur de Bourbourg. PROJECT ACTIVITIES: Meta-tasks and subprojects: • add project banner to articles • document Strategy • assign article ratings per the assessment scheme • add to Project references • collate images and maps • More... Categorisation: • develop full Category scheme • reorganise Cat:Mesoamerica contents • More category tasks... Templates: • {{Mesoamerica site infobox}} (create) • {{Mesoamerica ruler infobox}} (create) • {{Maya civilization}} (improve) • {{WP Mesoamerica}} project banner (populate) • More... ARTICLE TO-DO: Requested articles: • History of Mesoamerica • Chenes (Maya subregion & architectural style) • 260-day Mesoamerican calendar • List of Mesoamerican cultures • Hermann Beyer • Huastec civilization • Valley of Oaxaca • More... Expand from stub: • Calendar round • Chiapas highlands • Chilam Balam • Chol language • Trecena • Veintena • More... Cleanup/attention needed: • Domesticated plants of Mesoamerica • Gender roles in Mesoamerica • History of Mesoamerica (Paleo-Indian) • Maya women • Olmec figurine • More... Improvement drive: Start-Class • Mesoamerican calendars • Mesoamerican chronology • Mixtec • Monte Albán • Toltec • Yucatán Peninsula • More... Improvement drive: B-Class • Chichen Itza • La Venta • Maya calendar • Maya civilization • Maya script • Olmec • Quetzalcoatl • More... Prepare for Quality reviews (GA, PR, FAC): • Mesoamerica • Mayan languages • Spanish conquest of Mexico • Palenque • Chunchucmil • More...

This is the talk page for discussing changes to the Olmec alternative origin speculations article.
Please do not use it as a forum for general discussion about the article's subject. Sign and date your posts using four tildes (~~~~). Place new comments after existing ones (within topic sections). Separate topics with a ==Descriptive header==. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Frequently asked questions.	Talk page guidelines Respect etiquette Assume good faith No personal attacks Be nice Don't bite the newcomers!
This link will start a new topic section.

Contents 1 Pulled out pending evidence of notability 2 West Africa 3 Zingh Empire 4 African stuff 5 "Origins"/"Alternative speculations" 6 Origins 7 Did the Olmecs created the Mande/Mende Empire?? 8 Eureka 9 BEWARE THE OSTRICH! 10 ATTENTION ALL AFRICANS: YOU ARE BEING REDESIGNATED 11 The Human Race 12 LOL 13 Believe it or not 14 Alternative speculations 15 Reversion of edits by Olmec98 16 Editing out of recent (Aug 2006) comments 16.1 More deletions 17 Olmec98's 'suggested changes', moved from user talk 18 Changes to Section on Skeletal Evidence 19 Clyde Winters: you are violating Wikipedia policies 20 Clyde Winters is not Publishing Original Material 21 Clean up note section 22 Tlatilco & Cerro de las Mesa 23 Comment about Book of Mormon

[edit] Pulled out pending evidence of notability

I moved the following recent addition out of the article, pending citation and evidence of notability:

An African cultural influence is speculated by some to be the underlying reason for the rapid, unprecedented technological and cultural progress shown by the Olmecs around 1000 BC; DNA sequencing studies seem to show some unresolved patterns in modern-day descendants of the Olmecs - however, any African influence would have been small and based on only a few handful of individuals drifting across the Atlantic by accident and adverse weather and thus not likely leave a significant genetic legacy.

This paragraph is useless because it is not referenced, it is full of weasel words, and barely more than pure speculation — though I like the obvious attention paid to phrasing it as NPOV as possible. The reader is left wondering why 'only a few handful of individuals drifting across the Atlantic' would be able to cause a 'rapid, unprecendented technological and cultural progress'. We really need reliable sources to back this up and/or to provide evidence of the notability of this view. The whole thing smells a bit too much of Afrocentrism. What is it with the Olmecs these days on Wikipedia? — mark ✎ 00:43, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

It's worth remembering that there is absolutely zero evidence of any African influence in ancient Central America. No African artefacts, no known genetic links. Nothing. All of this speculation derives from the fact that the Olmec busts look vaguely Negroid. That's it. Given that they are clearly stylised, that's almost no evidence at all, but even if they did give us some indication of the physiognomy of Olmecs it's a huge leap to suggest African exploration. I'd have thought the presence of Australoid or Negrito elements in the population would be far far more likely.

Anyway, what we really need is a proper account of the historical development of Olmec culture, so I will try to add it. Paul B 013:15, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

no thats not it.. it seems that Mayan and Olmec writing has been deciphered using the languages/writing of North africa Astrokey44 00:28, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

Astrokey, I'm afraid you (or your sources) are quite mistaken, with regards to any input or influence African languages/writing has had in the decipherment for Maya, Olmec, or any other Mesoamerican script. There has been none. Please see Maya hieroglyphics for a start- there's quite a lengthy explanation as to the background on the steps towards decipherment of that writing system; the languages appearing in the script are quite definitively and conclusively Maya languages, with no demonstrated link to African languages past or present- Maya languages which today are still spoken (in their descendent forms) by millions of Maya people today. For a variety of reasons, Olmec writing cannot really be said to be deciphered at this point, but there is no reason whatsover to suspect any African influences here either- the various mesoamerican civilizations are quite intricately interlinked. If not convinced, I encourage you to browse around some much more reliable references, such as foundation for Mesoamerican studies. --cjllw | TALK 00:46, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

ok maybe I stumbled across the wrong sites, but there still seems to be large community of people who believe that it has been deciphered due to African languages, probably large enough to be noted in the article. Look up "Olmec language" on google and see the first sentence it says [1] Astrokey44 00:59, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

Whether this belief is widespread enough to warrant mentioning here, I'm not sure. It's unfortunate that the whacky new-ageist crystalinks site comes up first in that particular search- perhaps if the corresponding Wikipedia was further expanded, it'd be able to knock this one from its ranking position... .--cjllw TALK 04:31, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

Readers-please refer to They Came Before Columbus written by Rutgers University professor Ivan Van Sertima for an expansive and exhaustive study with specific evidence of 2 separate and distinctly Nubian visits to PreColumbian Mexico (and Peru). —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Nubia2000 (talk • contribs) 19 February 2006.

[edit] West Africa

There seems to be alot of evidence that the olmecs may have come from West Africa, - it isnt just the similarities with the colossal heads. Its also the language - I think the Olmec language has been proven to be similar to the languages of West Africa [2] [3] "The Olmec Writing is Unique. The Signs are similar to the writing used by the Vai people of West Africa. The Olmecs spoke and aspect of the Manding (Malinke-Bambara) language spoken in West Africa." [4] Astrokey44 12:52, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

What "Olmec language"? We have no writing from them, only a few signs. AFAIK, there are no significant similarities between West African and surviving Native American languages. Paul B 13:02, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

I thought they did have writing & it seems they deciphered Mayan writing (which developed from Olmec) using similarities with ancient N. African writing. There seems to be heaps of results showing an african link on google [5] Maybe not other native american languages, possibly it only influenced the Olmecs Astrokey44 13:09, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

There are some Olmec texts, but most are short (such as calendric dates, or single glyphs thought to give the identiy of the deity depicted). The few longer pre-classic texts are still poorly understood, but are related to-- but not the same as-- the currently much better understood Maya writings. The West African origin or connection of the Olmec has long been promoted vehemently by a group of fringe writers, but I know of no archaeologists or serious Mesoamericanists who say there is any actual evidence for it. (For example the African Mande artifacts a certain writer likes to point to are actually centuries later than the Olmec, and no serious scholars have yet found evidence of the supposed connection.) Cheers, -- Infrogmation 15:09, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

Yes, Mayan texts can be deciphered. The Mayan language is not thought by linguists to be related to West African languages . The web-pages you refer to are are fringe Afrocentrist scholarship, comparable to the Hindutva claims to have translated the Indus script and proven it to be Sanskrit. The Olmec produced glyphs that probably formed part of a proto-writing system, but our understanding of that is as yet uncertain. Such understanding as there is assumes a link to known forms of Meso-American languages, not to West African ones. The epi-Olmec cultures and the Mayans developed fuller writing systems. Look, for example, at reliable souces of information, such as this one [6] to see the current state of play. Paul B 15:13, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

If the alleged link between Olmec and West African text has enough serious evidence for it that it is published in serious scholarly publications, in the article it will go. Until such a time, such fringe hypothesizing no more should be stated as fact here than the similar allegegations that the Olmec were actually Polenesian, Chinese, or Extra-Terrestrials. -- Infrogmation 15:26, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

Indeed. The sole "evidence" for claims of African origins seem to be based upon a superficial resemblance of the heads to negroid features, thickened lips and all. I find it surprising that dedicated Afrocentrists would want to rely upon such stereotypical material. When von Daniken looked at the selfsame statues, they "obviously" were wearing space helmets, complete with microphone, thus "proving" they were extra-terrestrials.--cjllw | TALK 23:37, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

What about this sentence which appears on many sites: 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. Are you saying that they didn't decipher the language? It seems to me that they deciphered the Olmec and Mayan languages, and are trying to sweep under the rug the fact that they used African languages to do it. I'm not 'afrocentric' at all, Ive just seen this same information in quite alot of sites, it seems to be more than just 'fringe'. And for serious scholarly publications, what about Rafinesque in 1832 who "published an important paper on the Mayan writing that helped in the decipherment of the Olmec Writing". "Leo Wiener (1922, v.3), was the first researcher to recognize the resemblance's between the Manding writing and the symbols on the Tuxtla statuette. In addition, Harold Lawrence (1962) noted that the "petroglyphic" inscriptions found throughout much of the southern hemisphere compared identically with the writing system of the Manding." [7] and also "Paper presented at the 1997 Central States Anthropological Society Meeting, treating Olmec as a West African language." I also found a page once which showed the correlation with the symbols, cant seem to find it now. This one does it though not as well: [8] ---- Astrokey44 00:00, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

Not to worry, Astrokey, one can easily be led astray by sources posing as authorative, when they are nothing of the kind. Unfortunately much of this speculative material gets replicated through the web, this multiplication seeming to bolster the argument, whereas it is mere repetition of the same misinformation (btw, my comment re "dedicated Afrocentrists" above was not a reference to you, but rather the types of sources in which this appears; hope you were not offended). In general, I would be extremely cautious about using any geocities or similar page as a reference- absolutely anybody can set one of those up. The citations these have given seem to be a mix of the fringe (like Lawrence) with (mis-)quotes from reasonable sources, like Rafinesque. Rafinesque did make some insightful comments re the likely nature of Maya script, but it would be more than 120 years before its decipherment really took off; and no-one before the 1930s could have anything to say about the Olmec, as their civilisation's remains were not discovered before then. Reputable scholars like Heine-Geldern have from time to time noted various similarities (without necessarily claiming a direct link) between Mesoamerican and more distant cultures (mainly in Asia), but not so much these days and none of these claims have stood up to scrutiny. And presenting a paper is not the same thing as having it accepted.--cjllw TALK 04:31, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Zingh Empire

Oh come on now. Most people here would agree that the Moron's claim are a bit strecthed, yet they still get mentioned despite having no proof. I'm not claiming that the Olmecs are definitively black or west african but there is enough evidence to at least suggest it as a possibility. Linguistics is one of them as well as physical appearance. The Olmecs certainly look more African than say Mayans, Aztecs, or most other native americans. There are countless books and websites that support claims that either the Olmecs were from West Africa or at least came into enough contact with NorthWestern Africans to speak a similiar language and make similiar looking statues. I don't know if everthing claimed in all these websites and books is true but I do know that they all seem to have consistent claims of a Zingh empire that came across the Atlantic and made contact with Olmecs and spoke similiar language. Some books actually explained that cotton which was native to africa was in the region of where the Olmecs were and no where else in America. Strange coincidence? I don't know but worth mentioning. There is also the Mende language and 'inferior' pyramid builing. Both West Africa and the Olmec had the same language and so called 'inferior' pyramid building. They were no Egyptian or Nubian pyramids but it is something unique to the two cultures. Also: The Washitaw Nation of Louisiana is one such group, the Garifuna or Black Caribs of the Caribbean and Central America is another, the descendants of the Jamasse who live in Georgia and the surrounding states is another group. There are also others such as the Black Californian of Queen Calafia fame (the Black Amazon Queen mentioned in the book Journey to Esplandian, by Ordonez de Montalvo during the mid 1500's).

The Olmecs used an African practice that is very common in Africa. That practice is body scarification and specifically facial scarification as practiced in West Africa. Many of the facial scars seen on the Olmec terracotta faces, such as "dot" keloids and "lined" patterns are identical to Africans such as the Dinka of Sudan and the Yoruba and others of West Africa. (Dinka scarification can be found in old copies of National Geographic. Olmec scarification can be found in the text by "Alexander Von Wuthenau, Unexpected Faces in Ancient America."

African hairstyles such as cornroes are found on many of the Olmec terracotta found in Mexico. Both kinky hair carved into one of the collosal stone heads of basalt, as well as the cornroed style wearing tassels (see African Presence in Early America, by Ivan Van Sertima; Transaction Publisher)

The Olmecs practiced a religion and astronomical sciences identical to those practiced by Africans in the Mali region and Nigeria today. The Olmecs studied the Venus Complex in astronomy. Today, the Ono and Bambara who are famous sea and river travelers have studied that same complex for thousands of years. In fact, another group the Dogon are well known for their tracking and mapping of the Sirius star system and their accurate results.

The Olmecs also had a religious practice of Thunder worship where the ax was a prominent feature. In West Africa, the ax is also a prominent feature in connection with the Shango or Thunder God worship. Both the Olmecs and the Shango worshippers in West Africa placed an emphasis on the religious significance of children in their religious practices. Also both groups coincidentally call the thunder gd shango Astronomers did a study that said there is no way that the Olmecs could have seen some of the stars their calendar was based on which proves they must have foreign contact with people from either South West Europe,West/north Africa, or mid-east because those were the only places that all of the stars could be seen at once.

Studies done by researchers such as Ivan Van Sertima (They Came Before Columbus), Alexander Von Wuthenau (Unexpected Faces in Ancient America), Runoko Rashidi and others have presented evidence that clearly show that the Olmecs were not Indians with "baby faces," or Indians who looked like Blacks (although a few Olmecs did mix with the Native Americans). They were Africans no different from Africans found in the Mende regions of West Africa.

This is enough evidence to at least have a mention in the Olmec article. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Adallasas (talk • contribs) 15 December 2005.

I think they are called Mormons, not Morons. There is no "linguistic evidence" or biological evidence. The rest of this is just speculation. Scarification is practiced by Polynesians, does that make them African in origin (or the Olmecs Polynesians). Thor is a god of thunder, and axes are significant in Norse culture. Does that mean that ancient Nordic peoples came from west Africa? Anyway, the Afrocentrist claims are mentioned in the article. Paul B 11:38, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

No offense but you seem to be more concerned with stating this as afrocentric than looking at any of the evidence. Have you ever been to central america where the Olemc site is? Maybe, but have you translated the scripts. Doesn't even matter. I think you are a bit eurocentric because you are scared to have any sort of link being mentioned despite the linguistic evidence. If you put Olmec in google half of the links explain their african heritage. I'm not saying it is all credible but clearly there is a link. If the Olmec spoke Greek and worshipped Greek gods and doubt you would be denying they had a link to greek peoples. These are not afrocentric claims they are reality claims. Go look it up for yourself.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jmac800 (talk • contribs) 16 December 2005.

From my ugly "eurocentric" POV I ask you to provide sources that prove that African cultures were able to cross the Atlantic, before entertaining the idea that any cultural exchange was going on. For instance, there is evidence that the polynesians may have been able to cross the Pacific. Also there is a notable absence of any unique Olmec cultural features in African cultures: where are the giant heads, jaguars or feathered serpents, just to name a few? -- Rune Welsh | ταλκ | Esperanza 13:02, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

So I am "eurocentric" because I say that the Olmecs were native Americans? Doesn't that seem a bit of an eccentric use of language? I suggest you look at fewer websites and more books. AFAIK, the linguistic evidence does not suggest W. African links it suggests American links. Paul B 22:59, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Jmac800, as Paul notes there is no "linguistic evidence"- it is not even well established what language(s) were spoken in the Tabasco region at the time of the Olmec (such evidence as there is points to Mixe-Zoque), let alone that there is a relationship between those and African languages. A bunch of webpages pulled up in a google search does not a case make- just like in wikipedia, you need to consider just how reliable or otherwise these "sources" are before wanting to rely on them. Quite frankly, there's an awful lot of rot circulating, and the random associations, distortions, outright errors (no-one has a clue what the Olmec themselves actually called their deities, for eg) in these sites (and in Adallasas's post above) actually belittle the significant achievements of African and Mesoamerican cultures alike. I can't argue that these "Olmecs came from Africa" views are so obscure as to be not notable; however, they do need to be presented for what they are, together with the account on how actual scholarship views them. In fact, if you wanted there are actually several "traditional" scholars, such as Heine-Geldern, who have in the past entertained hypotheses on external connections and who could be quoted (along with their rebuttals).--cjllw | TALK 00:07, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Well I can't argue for adals but I there are some pretty daming similiarities between these two cultures. I looked it up and there are encyclopedias and books many of them I had to translate from spanish that claim or suggest the OPlmecs were black. It seems as if this is impossible for you to understand or believe as if no one could have made contact with native american before white people seems to be your argument. There is a bit of evidence this guy gives and I don't think it is enough to say its all fairy tales becuase I have seen some of the arguements he posted in books. Espcially the thing about the stars in the Olmec calendar they wouldn't have been able to see.

It would be good if you could provide the name of the Spanish sources you checked. I could probably check some of them myself. -- Rune Welsh | ταλκ | Esperanza 13:02, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Jmac, apparent similarities by themselves do not establish a connection. As for the "evidence", in assessing its validity it also helps to understand what the scientific (or 'mainstream', if you like) view is, not just the claims of the alternative proponents. And I reject the Olmec-African connection not out of distaste for the very idea that Africans (or whoever else) should be capable of great achievements, as you seem to imply- on the contrary, African peoples and civilizations have made their own highly significant advances which deserve to be better known than they are. Instead, this judgement is based on my understanding of what the evidence actually shows. I see little value in debating these claims point-by-point here, however- instead, if there is something specific you think needs to be included in the article, then let's see them, with references.--cjllw | TALK 13:21, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] African stuff

I wonder whether the African stuff should be put in a separate section, or merged with the Mormon stuff in a section called "alternative views" or something like that. At the moment the Afrocentric stuff is rather buried in the "collossal heads" section. At least if its in the open, as it were, it can be placed alongside the Jaredites, since there is an overlap between the two models - what with the Jaredites being deemed "Hamitic" and all. Paul B 19:47, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

At best, any of the fringe theories including Mormon speculation and Afrocentrist claims (if they are to be mentioned at all) should be placed in a separate section towards the end. Mixing this stuff up with what is evidentially-based and generally accepted by scholarship is just confusing the matter. As things stand, overall this is rather a confused and very incomplete article, and in need of a significant rewrite and addition of citeable sources. Such "alternative" views also clearly need to be marked as such.--cjllw | TALK 23:26, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Agreed. Currently we have the "mormon speculation" section at the end of the article. We could just rename it to "speculation" and write each claim with its rebuttal. -- Rune Welsh | ταλκ | Esperanza 13:03, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps people could look at the facts and really analyze them. If colossal carvings don't give any clues, I don't know what else could? Apart from the studies that have been carried out on skeletal remains that confirm African ancestry of the Olmecs, and also the linguistic ties. I think it is harder to prove that they weren't, rather than were, of African origin.

So, do you have references to scholarly studies of these "Olmec skeleton remains" that prove "African ancestry". The other issues have already been discussed in detail. Paul B 00:29, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Oh come on now. You are obviously ignoring evidence that the Olmecs were descended from Captain Jean-Luc Picard. Compare Picard's photo with this figurine. If this doesn't give you a clue, I don't know what else could. Everyone knows that the Enterprise visited Earth's past many time, and that the Captain was quite the ladies' man. I think it is harder to prove that they weren't, rather than were, Captain Picard's progeny. Madman 17:21, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps you would find support for your groundbreaking theory here Talk:Kennewick Man#The resemblance to Patrick Stewart Paul B 11:01, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "Origins"/"Alternative speculations"

This section has been called "Alternative speculations" because it is about non-mainstream material. If we were genuinely to discuss the theories of the origins of the Olmec people, then we will also have to explore in this section all the mainstream material on the population history of the Americas. That would be rather out of place here unless we had good reason to think that the Olmec, specifically, were a racially distinct "people", who had a population history that marks them out from other cultures. I know of no evidence that this is the case. There is no distinctive physical anthropolgy of "Olmec" skeletons.

It is certainly true that ancient skeltons have been found that are said to be "Australoid", and that this has led to speculation that Australoid people were early migrants to the Americas, but as far as I know these skeletal remains are not associated with the Olmec at all. There's nothing wrong with this concept, of course, though it depends on accepting the category of "Australoid" as an unchanging racial identity that links modern and ancient peoples. That's certainly very questionable. All that can be said is that there are some what are termed "paleoamerican" skulls, found in Brazil and elsewhere, that have a morphology similar to modern Australoids and may represent an extinct lineage that was supplanted or absorbed by later migrants. This was thousands of years before the rise of Olmec culture, has no specific connection to it, and also has no specific connection to "African" (or "Negroid" or "Africoid") identity. Australooids, Paleoamericans and Europeans are all as much or as little "African" as eachother in this respect. Paul B 13:32, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Origins

No credible, academic scientist would argue that Australoids and Africans are not directly related. The forensic studies already match, and confirm that Australoids and Melanesians migrated from Africa over 50,000 years ago, via South Asia and South-East Asia, to the South Pacific and Australasia. The remains found in Brazil (including Luzia - who's facial reconstruction clearly distinguishes her Africoid/Australoid appearance) and those in Baja, Mexico diminish roughly at 7000 years BC, these are based on the skeletal remains that were found in those regions.

Olmec civilizations date roughly back to 3000 years BC. The skeletal remains of Africoids in this region identify that either earlier people may have migrated north to this region, or that a new wave of peoples arrived. Never-the-less there is no argument about the identity of skeletal remains that were found, and the evidence, including that of deciphering Olmec writing through Mande language seems highly strange for one to want to dispute. It is very laughable that, everyway which way one looks, one finds supportive evidence, but people seem to prefer to ignore it. The only other possibility is that Mongoloids (or how about Christopher Columbus) planted such evidence there to throw the rest of the world off as a joke. Now that's what I would call "ALTERNATIVE SPECULATION" - NOT forensic science, linguistic studies, and colossal artefacts that provide us with a pretty clear picture.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 86.136.81.80 (talk • contribs) 11 March 2006.

Of course "Australoids" and Africans are related. Europeans and Africans are related too! However, I don't think you are going to call the British Empire an "African civilization" are you? It makes as much sense, since the ancestors of Europeans probably left Afria later than Indigenous Australians, logically that makes them closer to Africans. And there is argument about the interpretation of (very rare) skeletal remains. No specialists in Amerindian languages link the Olmec to Mende. Anyway, the Mende argument completely contradicts the Australoid argument. Are you claiming that they were Australoid or that they were Mende? Or were they Mende Australoids? Paul B 14:50, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Well you are getting closer, thank goodness. Every human being on this planet is decended from Africa. This is accepted otherwise we may have extra-terrestials amongst us. Fortunately, my friend, the British Empire is long dead. If you are referring to The British Isles, well there is plenty of archaeological and linguistic evidence to show very early settlers of direct African origin. But for some reason you will probably want to contest that forensic evidence too. So you may want to do some DNA testing amongst the British population,and embrace the results, plenty of African blood flowing, my friend. Peoples don't evaporate. They integrate. But don't waste time. Go straight to the top. Ask the Queen. She campigned during her coronation, that she was most befitting to head the Commonwealth because of the African and Indian blood flowing through her. So no, I would not call the British Isles an African Civilization, but it sure is a mixed one. No different between the rest of the whole wide world, my friend.

It is fairly elementary if you understand where human beings came from and how they evolved into distinct classifications that the first settlers of every corner HAD to have been African. This is ensued to by genetic mutations of various degrees into what people misappropriate as "races". There is only one human race, it is indigenous to Africa, and it branches off and migrates to populate the rest of the world, simple. Now of course from the African parent you can trace the chronology of the different branches. Chronology would indeed place Caucasoids closer to their Africoid parent, as they are the youngest of the branches, however the genetics, show little difference between Africoids and "Australoids", the latter, in whom, fewer mutations occured, however, some of the mutations, externally exhibited via depigmented (blond), and straight hair type, which some "Australoids" demonstrate to various degrees, indicate that it is probably from this same strain of Africans that Caucasians are derived from.

So because the genetic profiles of "Australoids" (yes all these "oids" start to sound dehumanizing, but basically it just refers to African geno/phenotypes that populate Australasia, and let us use these classifications only to articulate the branchings and migrations of the human race, so that we may better understand the processes, and not to divide it a la "British Empire" style.) and Africoids can be so similar, (note: genetic variations exist within the Africoid classification itself) we find genetic samples amonst the Olmec which may be linked either way, because in a nutshell, Africans left the continent and went in many different directions it appears. But the linguisting deciphering that links Olmec to the Mande, could not be procured by a specialist in Amerindian languages as you observe, it has to be procured by a specialist in Mande languages.

Science is not that complicated, its actually quite elementary if you start with an unbiased blank slate, research clues, especially "colossal and obvious" clues, add dash of logic, a little common sense, confirm with FORENSIC EVIDENCE, and embrace the results.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 86.138.7.210 (talk • contribs) 11 March 2006.

Well this is so confused it's difficult to know where to begin. The first thing to note is that we are supposed to convey mainstream information first and foremost. You won't find any of this stuff in the Britannica or any other serious encyclopedias. However, unlike them Wikipedia does often include non-mainstream information. But it should not be presented, falsely, as if it is more widely accepted than it is. That's policy. Now, as for your actual arguments, you seem to have a very bizarre and self-contradictory notion of "Africanness". First you state that there is "plenty of African blood flowing" in the UK. What you mean by this is anybody's guess. Yes, there are people of recent African descent in the UK, and yes, everyone in the UK ultimately descended from Africans, the queen included. So what? I've no idea what claims in the queen's coronation "campaign" you think you are referring to. She inherited the crown. There was no "campaign". Your claim that "genetics, show little difference between Africoids and Australoids" is just wrong. In fact there is more genetic diversity among African peoples than in the rest of the world! There are no Australoids in Africa, so if you want to claim that the Olmec were related to Mande peoples in some way you will have to abandon the Australoid argument. Anyway, there is nothing to connect Australoid skeletal remains to Olmec culture and no "genetic samples" from "Olmec skeletons" exist. If you want to claim, like Runoko Rashidi, that there is some kind of international black identity that includes some Asian peoples then fine. But don't pretend that they are really any more related to modern or ancient Africans than other peoples are. And by the way, no coca leaves have been found in Egyptian tombs. I guess you are refering to this story. [9] The rest of this seafaring stuff is just fantasy. For a detailed debunking of the "African/Olmec" skeleton theory, see[10] Paul B 00:06, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

A fine analysis, Paul. It only remains to add (should any further demonstration be required) that with regards to the supposed 'decipherment' and identification of the Olmec script as reflecting a language from Africa (generally one of the Mande languages), this too is without credible foundation and dismissed by all but a few avowed Afrocentrist authors. This claim was first popularised by the likes of Ivan van Sertima in the 1970s based on some earlier comments of alleged similarities between Olmec and Maya inscriptions on the one hand, and two indigenous African scripts, Vai and Libyco-Berber on the other. One Afrocentrist author, Clyde Winters, has even gone so far as to claim to have "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" [11].

But this is apparent nonsense. The Vai syllabary was actually only created in the 19th century[12], and their claims rather do a disservice to the native Liberian Duala Bukare, whose ingenious creation it was. As for Libyco-Berber, this is actually a script of the Tuareg Berbers, and not "black west africa"; nevertheless Winters claims Vai is actually older (despite its origins being historically attested), and that Libyco-Berber can be used to write a Mande language[13]. As for the rest of the claims for similarities in writing, you only need a passing familiarity with Maya and Olmec inscriptions to realise that Winters' reproduced drawings are laughably inaccurate (in all likelyhood deliberately so, since they are altered to emphasise the correspondence).

It is rather lamentable that debate on this topic takes up the entirety of this talk page, and that much time is spent going over the same old ground. I'd propose that we keep a set of pro forma responses pinned to the top of this talk page, to serve as a handy reminder in case of future editors seeking to unilaterally impose views (or 'add information', if you prefer) which have already been rejected. I was thinking something along the lines of, "If you've come to this article with the intention of expanding upon alternate theories such as Olmec-Africa contact, please be aware that many of the considerations of the material have already been reviewed and discussed here. Before attempting an addition or rewrite, consider whether the material has already been debated and its suitability for inclusion (or not) decided upon. In particular, while it may be a legitimate exercise to outline (with citation) what these theories propose, it is not legitimate to present endorsement of such claims as widely-held by the scientific community.", or some such wording...you get the drift. The main recurring arguments could even be bullet-pointed, for ease of reference. The hope would be that this may at least forestall some of the more specious arguments being made, and cut down on the need to rehash it all out every time some new contributor with these views comes along — but a hope which is probably forlorn.--cjllw | TALK 14:03, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Did the Olmecs created the Mande/Mende Empire??

After the vociferous postings of Mr 86.136.81.80, I did some reading up on the Mende civilization, and I see that it reached its peak roughly 1300 AD. The Olmecs, on the other hand, reigned from 1200 BC to perhaps 400 BC.

So, if there is significant evidence linking the two peoples, it would seem to me that we would have to assume that the Olmecs were the predecessors of the Mende and not the other way around. In fact, that might explain what happened to the Olmecs: they all left for Africa to found the Mande/Mende/Mali Empire!! Madman 15:56, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Even before that you need to prove people were able to cross the Atlantic at that time. Since there's no evidence for that any further discussion is moot. -- Rune Welsh | ταλκ 16:16, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Eureka

How about proposing that we all don't come from Africa? And time works in reverse. Because the existence of Mande peoples stretches way back into antiquity.

Then again "Madman" let's stick with your line of thought. "If" the Olmecs did happen to have founded the Mande, this would have to mean the Olmecs were African proper, because the Mande don't really fall into the Mongoloid classification, wouldn't you agree? Then again if you ignore their obvious features, genetic samples, and just about any other evidence...we could fabricate concensus based on alernative speculation. Now theres an original idea for you.

However "Rune.Welsh" coca leaves, which are indigenous to the Americas, were found in the pyramids of Kemet/Kush (Ancient Egypt/Sudan). So unless teleportation was in use, some one had to have been making trips across the Atlantic between the Americas and Africa —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 86.138.7.210 (talk • contribs) 11 March 2006.

[edit] BEWARE THE OSTRICH!

Just because you stick your head in a hole doesn't mean that you can make things disappear. There seems to be a problem with acceptance here, also illiteracy. The article gives plenty of references from different scientists and academics of a variety of nationalities, some of whom weren't even around when Afrocentrism came into being. The findings of Africoid skulls at several Olmec sites, were studied by a craniologist, not just an ordinary anthropologist. There is actually too much supporting evidence, and as for Encyclopedia Brittanica...hey...I can still count the years back when their entry on South Africa said it was founded by Boers! Lets not kid ourselves. Eurocentrism is scarier by far, and ignorance is a crime. I would doubt the credibility of anyone who ignores forensic evidence, I mean, what more could you need? Those Mayan murals are as clear as daylight. The only way you won't see African people in them is if you shut your eyes. I don't see what the problem is. Nice to finally see some scientific education. I think it is quite shallow to accuse anybody and everybody who mentions African civilizations of "Afrocentrism". I wouldn't exactly say that Rafinesque falls under that category! ...and Wiener was a professor Linguist at Harvard, now you couldn't exactly call him, or his academy Afrocentric whatsoever!! What it does show is a lack of understanding which is such a shame. And no one is going to fall for that "Quick, discredit them! If they mention African, call them radical" tactic. That is so played out. Get with the program, and provide a logical explanation as to why the evidence exists where it does and also why human beings that just happened to belong the first stock on the planet couldn't figure out how to get from A to B in a boat after being here since the beginning of man's existence - and on their ownsome for a few million years before anybody else came on the scene. Let's just say they'd had plenty of time to figure that out...like, tens and tens, and thousands of years at the very least...oh sorry, I forgot, they were supposed to be waiting for someone else to Civilization to them...but I guess they just got a little bit impatient and got the hell on with it! So lets punish their lack of cooperation by denying every accomplishment that they ever made and pretend they never happened shall we? Hey, has anybody trademarked "Stupidocentrism" yet?! 'Cos everybody sure seems to be buying it. Oh? It's being marketed by another name? Mainstream Concensus!  : o

PS as for the Australoid comments, are we also to pretend that there is no association between Australoids such as Papua New Guineans and continental Africans too?!—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Amy Gibson (talk • contribs) 86.136.81.80.

I don't think anyone has trademarked Stupidcentrism yet, but perhaps you should. Rafinesque was writing in the 1830s and Weiner in the 1920s. These are hardly up to date sources are they? And why do you keep equating flat-noses and wide-lips with "Africans"? It's like saying that all pictures of pointy-nosed and thin-lipped people must show Europeans. Many asian people have flat noses and wide lips. The only connection that the people of Papua New Gunea have with Africa is the same connection that we all have. The fact that some features - skin colour etc - are the same tells us little. Paul B 20:14, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] ATTENTION ALL AFRICANS: YOU ARE BEING REDESIGNATED

No, no stupidocentric - it's all yours. I insist. Finally I think, I can really understand your affinity for "alternative speculations" so you must be fairly compensated. If Rafinesque proved it in the 1830's and Weiner in the 1920's I wouldn't call critizing contemporary scholars who reinforce it with further scientific evidence very - ahem, rational. I for one advocate repeat DNA testing, * multi-nationial teams that include a balance of people from all colour spectrums. You are absolutely right it should be done...we definitely have the technology to do it. But silence speaks volumes as to why it hasn't, or then again perhaps the moratorium of racial dna testing on ancient Kemetic remains since Diops "uncomfortably Africoid findings" speaks even louder! And who said that all Africans had wide lips and flat noses? The text states clearly state that Africans have a wide variety of facial features. However if you combine ANY size lips or noses, murals that depict deep mahogany and brown coloured skin, cornrowed and kinky hair, African linguistic association, plus, African genetic and phenotypical finger printing you might possible end up with an "Asian" however, it would be one that looks more like an ancient Xiang of China or perhaps the present day Andaman, Nicobar or Sentinelese. But then again...

If the visible features, skin colour, hair type, etc., and DNA of the Papua New Guineans - or any of the above - "tell us little" then we might as well go all the way and say that Africans on the continent only 'look' African too, but they are not really, right? And anyone that has left the Continent, at any given stage, be it yesterday or 50,000 years ago, yet still looks like an African, is just a mythical creature waiting to be designated an identity by an explorer (or an ostrich). Ah yes, then we can severe the rest of humanity from Africa, and tell the world that the (not very recent) African blood that has been flowing for centuries in Europeans came from...........the extra terrestials that were rumoured to have built the pyramids of Kemet.

We are all connected, and there is absolutely nothing wrong with pointing out the very strong evidence that projects a genesis of Olmec Civilization that includes Africans.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 86.136.81.80 (talk • contribs) 13 March 2006.

I agree with the We all are connected part.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.247.170.134 (talk • contribs) 10 May 2006.

Again with confusions. Diop did not do "DNA" tests on mummies. He attempted to extract melanin from skin to prove they were black. I don't know what this mysterious DNA testing is that "silence speaks volumes as to why it hasn't [been done]". Do you mean extracting DNA from ancient bones? It's not easy to do that. DNA degrades over time. Do you mean testing modern populations to model ancestry? That is being done, but actually there is often resistence from indigenous peoples who suspect some sort of experimentation is being performed on them. See this response to the Human Genome Diversity Project, an attempt to create a genetic map of all human populations [14]. Your comments about visible features just indicate how enthralled you are by an archaic model of race, a model which actually justifies racial hierarchies. Only by taking the view that modern Africans, Aboriginal Australians etc are somehow "stuck" in a racial identity formed 50,000-70,000 years ago that has never changed can you really argue for commonality between these peoples, even then you are saying nothing about direct contacts between Africa and Mesoamerica. Such a view simply reinforces the old idea that black-skinned people are "less evolved" than other people, since, unlike others, apparaently they all remain "the same race" over tens of thousands of years. This view, btw, is not supported by genetics. Here's a passage from Cavalli-Sforza's "The History and Geography of Human Genes": Accordingly, at the time the first genetic trees were produced, we also constructed a tree from anthropometric characters, including measurements of the whole body and skin color (Cavalli-Sforza and Edwards, 1964). This [anthropometric] tree showed marked differences from that obtained with genes; for instance, Australian Aborigines and Africans were closely associated, whereas with genes these populations are the farthest apart. Paul B 09:09, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

With DNA, yet again I have to inform the people: DNA that is unrelated to phenotype and melanin cannot be deciphered in any objective way to determine if one is black or not. However with the Olmec heads it is possible to postulate or discern whether or not the civilization that produced them is related to historical period West Africans. Nevertheless, the arguments against the West African influence (the statement about half-cats for example) is a fringe assumption pushed as mainstream fact. NO one has cited any contribution by anyone stating that these heads are derived from half-man half-cat murals. But this assumption serves to merely divert attention without actually showing evidence. Finally this statement I took out because it is completely false It is also noted that the colossal Olmec monuments show eye folds found in the local Mesoamericans, a trait unknown among the peoples of West Africa.. If you look at Nigerian IFE sculpture, which I can link for you, you can see the same epilanthetic eye folds as Mesoamericans (and asians). In addition, I do not see that kind of eye fold as described by those, as the pictures on the article show, they do not have the eye fold described. Here is the ife scupture. [15] [16] --Zaphnathpaaneah 04:11, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The Human Race

There is only one. I have already said this.

All members of the human race are essentially Africans, they either live on the continent now named Africa or away from it. However...

The human race is now generally classified groups, with out strict borders, of people that are distinguishable by many variable characteristics that include skin colour, physiognomy, and genetic markers.

An example of one of these groupings is ie., the group that share dark pigmented skin, amongst other characteristics and common traits. To explain this further, "genetic studies have found exclusive links between African and Australo-Melanesian populations (Maca-Mayer et al., 2001; Quintana-Murci et al., 1999). Separate studies also identify that the "relationship between South-Asian, Austro-Melanesian, and Sub-Saharan African populations derives from the phenotypic similarities observed in the craniofacial skeleton of these populations, to the exclusion of Eurasians" (Howells 1989, Lahr 1996). (Source: Lahr et al., Searching for Traces of Southern Dispersal. Leverhulme Centre for Human Evolutionary Studies, Department of Biological Anthropolgy. Cambridge University, England., 2004).

Lastly within the group living on the continent of Africa there exist many wide variations. All one has to do is compare the Fulani, to the Khoisan, to the Nubian, to the Asante, to the Somalian nations. They all populate the African continent but the differences between each nation can be as wide as comparing any one of these groups to a Melanesian.

Therefore by referring to a group as African or Africoid, one is putting forward a term that is extended to a variety of peoples that share a variation of distinguishable characteristics, not as you put it, simply name tagging them in order to inflict oppression and say they are less in involved. The opposite is quite true, considering the length of their existence on earth - which is why I argue that the accomplishments that they have made should be acknowledged and respected, in no different a manner than those that came after them.

If opression were indeed my intention, I would hardly be bothering to point out the evidence that exists to identify this group as having a strong presence in creating the Olmec Civilization. I would be doing quite the contrary and trying my best to obliterate, dismiss, ignore, ridicule and obfuscate such evidence...

...sound familiar?

PS. 1. Diop did not attempt. He succeeded. 2. If extracting DNA from ancient bones is that difficult, we would have to dismiss our own existence. Is it not ancient bones that have taught us so much about our history on this planet so far...?

There is no point in further discussion, because you show no sign of recognising what the debate is actually about here. If you are saying there is "only one" race, then what are you arguing about - since it makes no difference at all what skull-shapes have been located? However you then go on to say the opposite, repeating your anthropometric model of race classification - which is fine if you want to say that Africans, Papua New Guineans etc are all black people, but it's not fine if you want to say that Olmecs migrated, at some unspecified date, by sea, from the Mande peoples of West Africa. Nor is it fine if you are trying to say that Australoid peoples are more closely related to Africans in the usual sense of the word "related" (i.e. in the sense that a man is more closely related to his father than to his uncle, even if he looks more like his uncle). The studies by Maca-Mayer, Quintana-Murci etc all provide evidence that supports what Cavalli-Sforza says, that a specific genetic link exists between some African populations and the phenotypically similar Australasian ones. This link differs from the other specific links between Africans and most Eurasians. The conclusion is not that they are more closely related, but that they represent a distinct, and earlier, out-of-Africa migration. In fact, as Cavalli-Sforza states, that means they are actually less related to modern Africans than most Eurasians, even though they look more like them.

Diop's "findings" in many areas are not regarded as reliable by most historians. Most of what we have learned about very ancient human migration-history is not derived from genetic studies of ancient bones, but from genetic studies of living people belonging to native populations.

I don't think there is an point in continuing this discussion here. If you log-in and create an identity/talk page we can do so there. I would support a reference to the Mande theory in the "Alternative" section comparable to the reference to the Jaredite theory. Paul B 18:34, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Did you have to write There is no room for discussion twice?—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.247.170.134 (talk • contribs) 10 May 2006.

Actually, "there is no room for discussion" was not written at all. As can be seen from the extensive exchanges above, there's been plenty of room for discussion - it's just that it reached a point where nothing constructive was going to come from the repetition.--cjllw | TALK 01:44, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] LOL

LOL, come on you pseudo-intellectuals get real! the statue it is clearly the image of a person with from African. It’s like saying the faces on Mount Rushmore are not really White. Who do you all think those big heads resembles more: George Lopez, Conan O’Brian, or Shaq.

It’s very important for readers around the world to understand if they don’t already know that some white folks in American are profoundly ignorant of their own history and origins let alone the origins of different ethnicity/cultures. Much of their views on Africans and themselves have been past down thorough the generations by their ancestors who are the lighter skinned people you see in the images were Africans are: in chains, on slave ships, on plantations, being whipped, sold on the White House lawn, owned by the leaders of the “free world”, skin shredded by water hoses, hanging from trees, genitals in jars on fireplace mantels, milk poured over the heads people at lunch counters, dogs sic biting us, officers madly swing bats at us, ect.

These people have an agenda and that is to downplay the role of African people influence on their own and other cultures.

When you read the article on the Moors, Kemet, Kush, Nubia, Egypt, keep this in mind who you are dealing with. You are getting your information from people who want to control of what people of African descent say, do, think, feel, what we call ourselves, and our history.

50 years from know they will be running around saying Rap music roots are not in West Africa but from the Sami people in Sweden or by people who live on the African content but the not so Black part.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 141.217.214.21 (talk • contribs) 23 May 2006.

Right. And UFOs built the pyramids too. -- Rune Welsh | ταλκ 14:56, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Q. from above anon: "Who do you all think those big heads resembles more: George Lopez, Conan O’Brian, or Shaq?"

A. None of them, but they rather more resemble the actual indigenous inhabitants of the Tabasco/Gulf Coast region themselves, as can readily be seen if you go there or look with a critical eye at a few comparative photos. The attempts to portray any and all criticism of the "Olmecs were African" theory as being symptomatic of white imperialism and ignorance, or deliberate downplaying of african/black achievements, are mistaken and wide of the mark. It actually has nothing to do with that dynamic, despite attempts by some to cloak themselves in the armour of the unjustly persecuted- that persecution has been real enough in other quarters, certainly, but it is not what is going on in this instance. In fact, statements like "These people have an agenda and that is to downplay the role of African people" are sadly ironic, for downplaying, ignoring and misappropriating is precisely what the Afrocentrist view on the Olmec does to the indigenous Mesoamerican peoples- robs them of their own achievements and sidelines them as bit-players in the development and flourishing of their own cultural, intellectual and artistic heritage. Van Sertima and the rest hardly even acknowledge their existence in their works, let alone afford them whatsoever any ability or merit to have developed these accomplishments independently. Cultural/racial imperialism, indeed.--cjllw | TALK 00:24, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Believe it or not

There are those out there who are black and who take an 'afrocentric' viewpoint (if it should be called that i dont think so) and hold a purist, parallel, eurocentric based viewpoint on who is and who is not african or black. In the case with these, you will find a big hassle from black Afro-purists that swear that no one outside of Equatorial Africans (whom they call Sub-saharan) and African-Americans (and some carribbeans) should be considered to be truely African or black. I hate this with a passion, because it also empowers eurocentric views that no culture outside of Africa should be seriously viewed as Black or African in orientation. So Clyde, I agree with your viewpoint, and I hope you can contribute to the Black People article, because from there does much of the divergent views become clarified. --Zaphnathpaaneah 04:18, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Olmecs would be rehtorical to be related to west Africa, because of their facial features. You can notice polynesians and hawaiians have also those features, and their skin texture is more related to native indians; not that it is known they are related to native indians.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.135.65.34 (talk • contribs) 15 August 2006.

[edit] Alternative speculations

Hey, Wikistorian Teth22 dropping in here, do you think we should include those nonsensical theories about African Mande and Chinese Shang people founding Olmec civilization ? I mean who the hell supports those theories besides hyperdiffusionist crackpots who have little schooling in historical research? Do you think I should delete the material? Get back to me. Peace. Teth22 04:05, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Although clearly discounted by the great majority of researchers in the field as fringe or pseudoarchaeological concepts, some of these diffusionist views are probably notable enough (in the sense that they are at least reasonably widely publicised, even if not widely held) to warrant a mention in the article, particularly the "African origins" hypothesis. So mention of these should likely stay, as long as their presentation is not over-long or promotional, and their relative (lack of) standing in the scientific field is duly noted.--cjllw | TALK 05:27, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

User:pernicketysplit, I am removing the material you added about population migrations since it seems largely irrelevant to the subject. The genetic history of the earliest ancestors of the people who became the "Olmec" tells us little or nothing about the specific origins of their culture, and I see no point at all in adding a section about the idea that some sort of parallel evolution of humanity may have occured in Central America. If someone had actually suggested this, then maybe it would relevant, but even then it would be very marginal. However, you seem to be saying that it is not known if anyone has ever suggested it! Well it's not known if anyone has suggested that they were a subterranean species that emerged from the bowels of the earth either, but we wouldn't put that in. Paul B 10:23, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

pernickeysplit, your edits are as liable to be "jumped on" as anyone else's when they contain totally irrelevant material. Only the irrelevant sections were removed. Saying they were related to Africans because everyone is, would be as meaningful as declaring the Roman Empire was in some sense "African", and including a map of ancient human migrations in the article on the history of Rome. It tells us nothing. Paul B 10:33, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

perncketysplit, your edits are now becoming increasingly silly. We do not write "some wikipedia editors consider"... in a passage which (obviously) was added by a wikipedia editor like everything else. You add a {{fact}} tag if you are concerned that it is unsourced. Paul B 10:59, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

• Yes, views should be credited to something less dubious sounding than "some wikipedia editors" if it is worth including. -- Infrogmation 13:54, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Reversion of edits by Olmec98

I've reverted the recent edits by User:Olmec98, which presented the African origins 'theory' as uncritically demonstrated. The tone is hardly surprising given that the text of that contribution was a copyvio taken verbatim from a couple of pro-African-origin websites including statements from Winters himself - compare this text for starters. While Winters' views may be paraphrased (in brief) here, presenting his interpretation of supposed supporting research as the unproblematic and mainstream one is both inaccurate and dishonest- doubly compounded when simply copying what he writes. Unless you can demonstrate that this African-origin theory has widespread support within the field, there is no way that this article can take the tone that any of that line of research is accepted or demonstrated.--cjllw | TALK 23:54, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

User:Olmec98, please cease inserting swathes of material taken directly from Winters' (self-published at his geocities site) works, such as the link already given above and this one (African Origins of Olmecs: Science and Myth. pdf). It has been directly explained to you that this is against wikipedia's copyright policy, and yet you persist. All such inclusions will continue to be reverted on sight.--cjllw | TALK 03:33, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

User:CJLL, I believe the Olmec page needs a full discussion of the DNA that indicates an African origin for many Olmec. On the Olmec page you summarily declare that the DNA does not indicate any early African presence in Mexico.This is false A. Arnaiz-Villena in The Uniqueness of Amerindians according to HLA genes and the peopling of the Americas #REDIRECT[[17]]makes it clear that there are numerous references to pre-Columbian Africans across the New World as noted by J. Alcina-Franch, Los Origenes de America, Madrid: Editorial Alhambra, 1985.The genetic evidence for Africans among the Mexicans is quite interesting. This evidence supports the skeletal evidence that Africans have lived in Mexico for thousands of years.The foundational mtDNA lineages for Mexican Indians are lineages A, B, C and D.The frequencies of these lineages vary among population groups. For example, whereas lineages A,B and C were present among Maya at Quintana Roo, Maya at Copan lacked lineages A and B (Gonzalez-Oliver, et al, 2001)^[1]. This supports Carolina Bonilla et al (2005) view that heterogeneity is a major characteristic of Mexican population ^[2].Underhill, et al (1996) noted that:" One Mayan male, previously [has been] shown to have an African Y chromosome." This is very interesting because the Maya language illustrates a Mande substratum, in addition to African genetic markers^[3]. James l. Gutherie (2000) in a study of the HLAs in indigenous American populations, found that the Vantigen of the Rhesus system, considered to be an indication of African ancestry, among Indians in Belize and Mexico centers of Mayan civilization. Dr. Gutherie also noted that A*28 common among Africans has high frequencies among Eastern Maya. It is interesting to note that the Otomi, a Mexican group identified as being of African origin and six Mayan groups show the B Allele of the ABO system that is considered to be of African origin ^[4]#REDIRECT[[http://www.neara.org/Guthrie/lymphocyteantigens02.htm 75.34.179.108 20:59, 22 August 2006 (UTC)]]. Gilberto Vargas-Alarcon makes it clear that the Maya speaking people possess a number of HLA B alleles including B*14,B*15, B*18, B*44, B*53 #REDIRECT[[18]].These are same HLA-B alleles common to Africans #REDIRECT[[19]]

Green et al claim that as many as seventy-five percent of the Mexicans have an African heritage (Green et al, 2000)^[5]. Although this may be the case Cuevas (2004) says these Africans have been erased from history^[6].The admixture of Africans and Mexicans make it impossible to compare pictures of contemporary Mexicans and the Olmec.In a discussion of the Mexican and African admixture in Mexico Lisker et al (1996) noted that the East Coast of Mexico had extensive admixture. The following percentages of African ancestry were found among East coast populations: Paraiso - 21.7%; El Carmen - 28.4% ;Veracruz - 25.6%; Saladero - 30.2%; and Tamiahua - 40.5%. Among Indian groups, Lisker et al (1996) found among the Chontal have 5% and the Cora .8% African admixture^[7].The Chontal speak a Mayan language. According to Crawford et al. (1974), the mestizo population of Saltillo has 15.8% African ancestry, while Tlaxcala has 8% and Cuanalan 18.1%.^[8]The Olmecs built their civilization in the region of the current states of Veracruz and Tabasco. Now here again are the percentages of African ancestry according to Lisker et al (1996): Paraiso - 21.7%  ; El Carmen - 28.4% ; Veracruz - 25.6% ; Saladero - 30.2% ; Tamiahua - 40.5%. Paraiso is in Tabasco and Veracruz is, of course, in the state of Veracruz. Tamiahua is in northern Veracruz. These areas were the first places in Mexico settled by the Olmecs. I'm not sure about Saladero and El Carmen.Given the frequency of African admixture with the Mexicans a comparison of Olmec mask, statuettes and other artifacts show many resemblances to contemporary Mexican groups.But a comparison of Olmec figures with ancient Mayan figures , made before the importation of hundreds of thousands of slaves Mexico during the Atlantic Slave Trade show no resemblance at all to the Olmec figures.This does not mean that the Maya had no contact with the Africans. This results from the fact that we know the Maya obtained much of their culture, arts and writings from the Olmecs. And many of their gods, especially those associated with trade are of Africans. We also find some images of Blacks among Mayan art.African ancestry has been found among indigenous groups that have had no historical contact with African slaves and thus support an African presence in America, already indicated by African skeletons among the Olmec people. Lisker et al, noted that “The variation of Indian ancestry among the studied Indians shows in general a higher proportion in the more isolated groups, except for the Cora, who are as isolated as the Huichol and have not only a lower frequency but also a certain degree of black admixture. The black admixture is difficult to explain because the Cora reside in a mountainous region away from the west coast”. Green et al (2000) also found Indians with African genes in North Central Mexico, including the L1 and L2 clusters. Green et al (2000) observed that the "discovery of a proportion of African haplotypes roughly equivalent to the proportion of European haplotypes [among North Central Mexican Indians] cannot be explained by recent admixture of African Americans for the United States. This is especially the case for the Ojinaga area, which presently is, and historically has been largely isolated from U.S. African Americans. In the Ojinaga sample set, the frequency of African haplotypes was higher that that of European hyplotypes”</ref> . Moreover, it is this DNA evidence along with the Spanish reports of Africans in Mexica discussed by Alcina-Franch which directly points to an African presence in America when you Europeans arrived on the scene.75.34.179.108 20:54, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

User:CJLL, your contention that there was no writing in Africa during the Olmec period is not supported by the evidence.The signs found in the Olmec writing are related to the Vai syllabary a Mande speaking people of West Africa. The Mande originally lived in North Africa. There are many inscriptions written in this script spreading from the Fezzan to the ancient Mande cities of Tichitt Nicole Lambert, Medinet Sbat et la Protohistoire de Mauritanie Occidentale, Antiquites Africaines, 4(1970),pp.15-62; Nicole Lambert, L'apparition du cuivre dans les civilisations prehistoriques. In C.H. Perrot et al Le Sol, la Parole et 'Ecrit (Paris: Societe Francaise d'Histoire d'Outre Mer) pp.213-226;R. Mauny, Tableau Geographique de l'Ouest Afrique Noire. Histoire et Archeologie (Fayard); R.A. Kea, Expansion and Contractions: World-Historical Change and the Western Sudan World-System (1200/1000BC-1200/1250A.D.) Journal of World-Systems Reserach, 3(2004), pp.723-816 . Mauny and others have identified the North African petroglyphs identified as writing, they have been definitively connected to Vai, an African language, which Deloffose has noted was created in ancient times according to Vai informants M. Delafosse, Vai leur langue et leur systeme d'ecriture,L'Anthropologie, 10 (1910) . The writing found among the Vai and along the Chariots routes leading to Tichitt is related to the Libyco-Berber writing. Many of these inscriptions like the inscription at Oued Mertoutek date back to Olmec times[[20]].

Using the Vai characters Dr. Clyde Winters deciphered the Olmec writing. As a result of his decipherment we know that the Olmec called themselves Xi/Si.75.34.179.108 21:10, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Dear anonymous, most of these points have already been dealt with ad nauseam. Clyde Winters is not a serious scholar. Many of the references you cite do not say what you claim they do. I assume that they are strip-mined from some afrocentrist website or discussion forum. Your first reference says absolutely nothing at all about "African" connections. I read the article from which the passage about a Mayan man with "an African Y chromosome" comes. The article makes it clear that the intention is to identify a "pre-Colombian Y chromosome-specific transition", present in 90% of central and south Americans, but only 50% of north Americans - which suggests a "single origin of linguistically diverse Americans with subsequent haplotype differentiation". So it suggests that native American populations descend from a common ancestral population (with later intrusions, most prominent in the north). In other word - no evidence of "African" migrants. They differentiate this from "post-Columbian European and African gene flow." The sentence you quote follows directly from one about post-Columbian "European admixture" and is clearly intended to compare with a parallel case of post-Columbian African admixture. In other words it has f-all to do with Olmecs. Paul B 22:39, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Editing out of recent (Aug 2006) comments

I have removed the following:

• There is archaeological evidence for African Blacks in Mexico (Ref: J. Alchina-France, Los origenes de America, Madrid:Editorial Alhambra,1985; A. Arnaiz-Villena, The uniqueness of Amerindians according to HLAA genes and the peopling of the Americas, Inmunol 25(1). Retrieved at: [21])

Note: this document says nothing about archaeological evidence for blacks in Mexico.

Hi You must have not read the article.They mention that archaeological evidence has been found in Mexico relating to Blacks. Please point out where this statement was not made by the authors.What evidence do you have to dispute the statement made by the authors of this book and article?Clyde Winters 04:15, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

• The study of Vargas and Rossum are flawed. They are flawed because . . .

Note: removed because it is not up to us to critique these works.

• Clyde Winters 13:50, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Note: we do not include our signature on the article pages.

• This proved that the signs found in the Olmec writing are related to the Vai syllabary a Mande speaking people of West Africa.

Again, we editors are prohibited from drawing conclusions.

I will review the other work later. Olmec98, please follow Wikipedia standards, including No Point of View. Madman 21:07, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Madman I will try to avoid this in the future.Clyde Winters 04:15, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Olmec98: Proof doesn't exist out side of Mathematics, only probability.Maunus 21:23, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Maunus Granted proof is only found in a court of law. But good science has nothing to do with probability. This has nothing to do with probaliity because probability involves chance.

All science is based on hypothesis testing and falsification. What this means is that the abundance of evidence in support of a theory remains confirmed until abundance of evidence is presented to disconfirm a hypothesis. When abundance of counter evidence is presented to disconfirms a hypothesis,that hypothesis is falsified. It is the evidence in support of a hypothesis that confirms a hypothesis, while the counter evidence is used to disconfirm a hypothesis.Clyde Winters 04:15, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] More deletions

I removed th section below for several reasons (1) There is no Table 2 in the article. (2) Wikipedia editors never draw conclusions (e,g, "we observe . . .". (3) We should use the word "skeletons" rather than "Olmecs", since we do not know that these skeletons were "Olmecs". Madman 20:23, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

" If we add together the following percent of the Olmecs represented in Table 2, by the Laponoid (21.2%), Equatorial (13.5), and Armenoid (18.3) groups we can assume that at least 53 percent of the Olmecs at Tlatilco were Africans or Blacks. Using the same figures recorded in Table 2 for Cerro, we observe that 40.8 percent of these "Olmecs" would have been classified as Black if they lived in contemporary America."

[edit] Olmec98's 'suggested changes', moved from user talk

User:Olmec98/Clyde Winters had posted their proposed revisions to the Olmec African origin section/article at my talk page; however it is better that they appear here on the article's talk page for general discussion. Therefore I have moved them here, without edit or comment:

Some writers claim that the Olmec were related to the Mande peoples of West Africa, based on interpretation of a wide range of evidence including skeletal, linguistic, epigraphic, religious and anthropological data. There is archaeological evidence for African Blacks in Mexico ^[9] Numerous African skeletons have been discovered at ancient sites in Mexico. Constance Irwin and Dr. Wiercinski (1972) have both reported that skeletal remains of Africans have been found in Mexico. Constance Irwin, in Fair Gods and Stone Faces, says that anthropologist see "distinct signs of Negroid ancestry in many a New World skull...."Dr. Wiercinski (1972) claims that some of the Olmecs were of African origin. He supports this claim with skeletal evidence from several Olmec sites where he found skeletons that were analogous to the West African type black. Many Olmec skulls show cranial deformations according to Pailles, yet Wiercinski (1972b) was able to determine the ethnic origins of the Olmecs. Marquez (1956, 179-80) made it clear that a common trait of the African skulls found in Mexico include marked prognathousness ,prominent cheek bones are also mentioned ^[10]. Fronto-occipital deformation among the Olmec is not surprising because cranial deformations was common among the Mande speaking people until fairly recently (Desplanges, 1906).Many African skeletons have been found in Mexico. Carlo Marquez (1956, pp.179-180) claimed that these skeletons indicated marked pronathousness and prominent cheek bones. A. Wiercinski , used classic diagnostic traits determined by crniometric and cranioscopic methods using the Polish Comparative-Morphological School skeletal reference collection (SRC), found that 13.5% of the skeletons from Tlatilco and 4,5% of the skeletons from Cerro de las Mesas were of West Africans. Diehl and Coe (1996) admitted that the inspiration of Olmec Horizon A, common to San Lorenzo's iniitial phase has been found at Tlatilco. R.A. Diehl claims that some many skeletons have been recently found at Tlatilco, that some archarologists believe the site was a necropolis ^[11] Moreover, the pottery from this site is engraved with Olmec signs. To determine the racial heritage of the ancient Olmecs, Dr. Wiercinski (1972b) used classic diagnostic traits determined by craniometric and cranioscopic methods. These measurements were then compared to a series of three crania sets from Poland, Mongolia and Uganda to represent the three racial categories of mankind.To determine the racial heritage of the ancient Olmecs, Dr. Wiercinski (1972b) used classic diagnostic traits determined by craniometric and cranioscopic methods. These measurements were then compared to a series of three crania sets from Poland, Mongolia and Uganda to represent the three racial categories of mankind.The only European type recorded in this table is the Alpine group which represents only 1.9 percent of the crania from Tlatilco.The other alleged "white" crania from Wiercinski's typology of Olmec crania, represent the Dongolan (19.2 percent), Armenoid (7.7 percent), Armenoid-Bushman (3.9 percent) and Anatolian (3.9 percent). The Dongolan, Anatolian and Armenoid terms are euphemisms for the so-called "Brown Race" "Dynastic Race", "Hamitic Race",and etc., which racist Europeans claimed were the founders of civilization in Africa.Keita (1993,1996)^[12], Carlson and Gerven (1979) ^[13]and MacGaffey (1970) ^[14]have made it clear that these people were Africans or Negroes with so-called 'caucasian features' resulting from genetic drift and microevolution (Keita, 1996; Poe, 1997). This would mean that the racial composition of 26.9 percent of the crania found at Tlatilco and 9.1 percent of crania from Cerro de las Mesas were of African origin.The races recorded by Wiercinski are based on the Polish Comparative-Morphological School (PCMS). The PCMS terms are misleading. As mentioned earlier the Dongolan , Armenoid, and Equatorial groups refer to African people with varying facial features which are all Blacks. This is obvious when we look at the iconographic and sculptural evidence used by Wiercinski (1972b) to support his conclusions.Wiercinski (1972b) compared the physiognomy of the Olmecs to corresponding examples of Olmec sculptures and bas-reliefs on the stelas. For example, Wiercinski (1972b, p.160) makes it clear that the clossal Olmec heads represent the Dongolan type. It is interesting to note that the empirical frequencies of the Dongolan type at Tlatilco is .231, this was more than twice as high as Wiercinski's theorectical figure of .101, for the presence of Dongolans at Tlatilco.The other possible African type found at Tlatilco and Cerro were the Laponoid group. The Laponoid group represents the Austroloid-Melanesian type of (Negro) Pacific Islander, not the Mongolian type. If we add together the following percent of the Olmecs represented in Table 2, by the Laponoid (21.2%), Equatorial (13.5), and Armenoid (18.3) groups we can assume that at least 53 percent of the Olmecs at Tlatilco were Africans or Blacks. Using the same figures recorded in Table 2 for Cerro,we observe that 40.8 percent of these Olmecs would have been classified as Black if they lived in contemporary America.Rossum (1996)^[15] has criticied the work of Wiercinski because he found that not only blacks, but whites were also present in ancient America. To support this view he (1) claims that Wiercinski was wrong because he found that Negro/Black people lived in Shang China, and 2) that he compared ancient skeletons to modern Old World people.First, it was not surprising that Wiercinski found affinities between African and ancient Chinese populations, because everyone knows that many Negro/African /Oceanic skeletons (referred to as Loponoid by the Polish school) have been found in ancient China ^[16]. These Blacks were spread throughout Kwangsi, Kwantung, Szechwan, Yunnan and Pearl River delta.Skeletons from Liu-Chiang and Dawenkou, early Neolithic sites found in China, were also Negro. Moreover, the Dawenkou skeletons show skull deformation and extraction of teeth customs, analogous to customs among Blacks in Polynesia and Africa.Secondly, Rossum argues that Wiercinski was wrong about Blacks in ancient America because a comparison of modern native American skeletal material and the ancient Olmec skeletal material indicate no admixture. The study of Vargas and Rossum are flawed. They are flawed because the skeletal reference collection they used in their comparison of Olmec skeletal remains and modern Amerindian propulations because the Mexicans have been mixing with African and European populations since the 1500's. The SRC Rossom used included skeletal material that was labled modern Mexican in his study. Wiercinski on the otherhand, compared his SRC to an unmixed European and African sample. This comparison avoided the use of Amerindian and Mestizo skeletal material that is clearly mixed with Africans and Europeans, in much the same way as the Afro-American people he discussed in his essay who have acquired "white" features since mixing with whites due to the slave trade.A. von Wuthenau (1980) ^[17], and Wiercinski (1972b) highlight the numerous art pieces depicting the African or Black variety which made up the Olmec people^[18]. This re-anlysis of the Olmec skeletal meterial from Tlatilco and Cerro ^[19] , which correctly identifies Armenoid, Dongolan and Loponoid as euphmisms for "Negro" make it clear that a substantial number of the Olmecs were Blacks support the art evidence and writing which point to an African origin for Olmec civilization.Physical anthropologist use many terms to refer to the African type represented by Olmec skeletal remains including Armenoid, Dongolan, Loponoid and Equatorial. The evidence of African skeletons found at many Olmec sites, and their trading partners from the Old World found by Dr. Andrzej Wiercinski prove the cosmopolitan nature of Olmec society.The Atlantic Slave Trade seems to have caused a large admixture of African genes among Amerinds, This has left many components of these Old World people within and among Mexican Amerindians.The iconography of the classic Olmec and Mayan civilization show no correspondence in facial features. But many contemporary Maya and other Amerind groups show African characteristics and DNA. Underhill, et al (1996) found that the Mayan people have an African Y chromosome ^[20]. Some researchers claim that as many as seventy-five percent of the Mexicans have an African heritage (Green et al, 2000)^[21]. Although this may be the case Cuevas (2004) says these Africans have been erased from history^[22].The admixture of Africans and Mexicans make it impossible to compare pictures of contemporary Mexicans and the Olmec. James l. Gutherie (2000) in a study of the HLAs in indigenous American populations, found that the Vantigen of the Rhesus system, considered to be an indication of African ancestry, among Indians in Belize and Mexico centers of Mayan civilization. Dr. Gutherie also noted that A*28 common among Africans has high frequencies among Eastern Maya. It is interesting to note that the Otomi, a Mexican group identified as being of African origin and six Mayan groups show the B Allele of the ABO system that is considered to be of African origin ^[23] .In a discussion of the Mexican and African admixture in Mexico Lisker et al (1996) noted that the East Coast of Mexico had extensive admixture. The following percentages of African ancestry were found among East coast populations: Paraiso - 21.7%; El Carmen - 28.4% ;Veracruz - 25.6%; Saladero - 30.2%; and Tamiahua - 40.5%. Among Indian groups, Lisker et al (1996) found among the Chontal have 5% and the Cora .8% African admixture^[24].The Chontal speak a Mayan language. According to Crawford et al. (1974), the mestizo population of Saltillo has 15.8% African ancestry, while Tlaxcala has 8% and Cuanalan 18.1%.^[25]The Olmecs built their civilization in the region of the current states of Veracruz and Tabasco. Now here again are the percentages of African ancestry according to Lisker et al (1996): Paraiso - 21.7%  ; El Carmen - 28.4% ; Veracruz - 25.6% ; Saladero - 30.2% ; Tamiahua - 40.5%. Paraiso is in Tabasco and Veracruz is, of course, in the state of Veracruz. Tamiahua is in northern Veracruz. These areas were the first places in Mexico settled by the Olmecs. I'm not sure about Saladero and El Carmen.Given the frequency of African admixture with the Mexicans a comparison of Olmec mask, statuettes and other artifacts show many resemblances to contemporary Mexican groups.But a comparison of Olmec figures with ancient Mayan figures , made before the importation of hundreds of thousands of slaves Mexico during the Atlantic Slave Trade show no resemblance at all to the Olmec figures.This does not mean that the Maya had no contact with the Africans.This would explain the "puffy" faces of contemporary Amerinds, which are incongruent with the Mayan type associated with classic Mayan sculptures and stelas. . Dr. Leo Wiener in Africa and the Discovery of America, suggested that the Olmec probably used a Mande writing system ^[26]. Dr. Wiener after comparing the writing on the Tuxtla statuette was analogous Manding writing engraved on rocks in Mandeland. Wiener (1922) and Lawrence (1961) maintain that the Olmec writing was identical to the Manding (Malinke-Bambara) writing used in Africa. ^[27] Matthew Stirling found an engraved celt in Offering No.4 at La Venta. Dr. Clyde Winters compared the symbols on the Tuxtla and La Venta celt and found that they were similar to each other and the symbols associated with the Vai writing. This proved that the signs found in the Olmec writing are related to the Vai syllabary a Mande speaking people of West Africa. The Mande originally lived in North Africa. There are many inscriptions written in this script spreading from the Fezzan to the ancient Mande cities of Tichitt ^[28]. Mauny and others have identified the North African petroglyphs identified as writing, they have been definitively connected to Vai, an African language, which Deloffose has noted was created in ancient times according to Vai informants ^[29]. The writing found among the Vai and along the Chariots routes leading to Tichitt is related to the Libyco-Berber writing. Many of these inscriptions like the inscription at Oued Mertoutek date back to Olmec times. Using the Vai characters Dr. Clyde Winters deciphered the Olmec script in 1979, claimed that Olmec symbols are a script that encodes a Mande language.</ref> ^[30][31]As a result of his decipherment we know that the Olmec called themselves Xi/Si.RegardsClyde Winters 13:11, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Now, given the length of the post and the likely contentious points for discussion, it might be better to deal with the claims made here one at a time.--cjllw | TALK 23:52, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Changes to Section on Skeletal Evidence

User:CJLL, There is someone who keeps changing the fact that the skeletons examined from Tlatilco and Cerros de las Mesas were excavated by Stirling and all date to the Olmec period. This is made clear by the professor at the following site[[22]] Please stop this person from making these corrections because they are untrueClyde Winters 04:29, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

What you link to is not a reliable source. It is an article which someone proibvably yourself scanned, edited and uploaded. There is no reference and the unnamed proffessor is clearly not a known scientist in Olmec studies. The person making the changes is alot closer to an objective viewpoint than you are. An please, "Truth" has nothing to do with the contents of this page which is merely a museum for ideologically loaded pseudoresearch.Maunus 07:35, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

This is a reliable source. This is the first page of Dr. Wiercinski"s, An Anthropological study on the origin of the "olmecs", Swiatowit, 33, 143-174. It is clearly written on this reference the name of the journal Swiatowit, and the author who wrote the article: Dr. Wiercinski. It is clear that the person making the changes has not consulted Wiercinski's paper on the Olmecs which is the Swiatowit article[[23]] . Moreover, if the writer who claimed that Tlatilco and Cerro de les Mesas were not Olmec sites, read the most recent book on the Olmecs, R. A. Diehl, The Olmecs: America's First Civilization, they would not have posted this falsehood.

It is about truth. Why [[User:Maunus|Maunus] do you support the publication of untruths instead of state of the art research. Are you claiming that Wiercinski the leading anthropologist of Poland and the geneticists and archaeologists mention in the piece published "ideologically loaded pseudoresearch" in refereed journals? Explain to us what Wiercinski gained from saying the Olmecs were Africas, or geneticist claiming that admixture exists between Africans and Mexicans; or Western archaeologist writing about African scripts that existed during the Olmec period. I believe you need back up your claims with hard evidence that the refereed articles cited in the piece is "pseudoresearch".Clyde Winters 12:47, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

I am the one who keeps changing the skeleton evidence. I make two basic points:

1. That Tlatilco is outside the traditional Olmec heartland. Although the skeletons apparently dated from the Pre-classic period, Tlatilco is hundreds of miles away from the heartland.
2. That the Cerro de las Mesas skeletons were from the Classic period, which was 1000 years after the Olmecs.

These are the facts. Madman 12:57, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

You have not supported any of your so-called facts with citations. You should stop making these changes. Please cite the source stating that Wiercinski examined none Olmec skeletons. Please explain why you are disputing Wiercinski's statement in the Swiatowit article the dates he provides for the Olmec skeletons all fall within the Olmec period[[24]] . Secondly, there were many Olmec sites outside the Olmec heartland. Please explain why you believe Diehl is wrong about about Tlatilco being an Olmec site. Clyde Winters 13:58, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

My response:

• Diehl never refers to Tlatilco as an Olmec site. I am very familiar with his most recent book and he explicitly refers to Tlatilco as one of the "best-know Tlatilco-culture sites" (p. 153.). Now certainly, archaeologically, Olmec figurines etc have been found at Tlatilco, but few would refer to it as an Olmec site. And it is definitely not in the Olmec heartland.
• On the page you cite above, Wiercinski explicitly refers to the skeletons from Cerro de las Mesas as being from the Classic period. The Classic period of Mesoamerica covers the years from 200 to 900 CE. That is, it starts some 700 years after the Olmec.

If we are going to go into detail, then we need to present consensus labels. We can't be calling Tlatilco an Olmec site (although we can say Olmec artifacts have been found there) and we can't say that the Classic period was an Olmec period. Wouldn't you agree? Madman 15:57, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

My reponse:

I agree Diehl never calls Tlatilco an Olmec site. But He does refer to the Olmec artifacts found at the site belong to an Olmec style. C. Niederberger refers to the Olmec period at Tlatilco as the Olmec -style horizon. In the article I will refer to Tlatilco Olmec-style horizon.

Controversy surrounds the dating of the Cerro de les Mesas site. Some people place it in the Classic period. Drucker who found the artifacts maintained that they dated to the Olmec III period or what we call the Terminal Olmec and Epi Olmec periods. It is clear that these artifacts had been moved so we can not determine the exact date. The monuments at Cerro de les Mesas are believed to have been built later than the Olmec artifacts found in the Cerro de les Mesas graves. These artifacts would include stelaes 4,9,11 and monuments 2 and 5 according to Ignacio Bernal. Moreover, the Olmec canoe found by Drucker at Cerr de les Mesas, is of the same form as the jade canoe effigy and hand vessel which date between 1500-500 BC(see: Jill Gutherie (Ed.), The Olmec World: Ruler and Rulership, p.194). The affinity of these art pieces of unknown provenance in Mexico, suggest that the Cerro de les Mesas artifacts date to the same period. This would agree with Drucker's placement of Olmec phase of Cerro de les Mesas in the Olmec III period. As a result, you can not really claim that the Olmec horizon at Cerro de les Mesas dates to the Classic period.

Madman stop posting the misinformation that the skeletons of Africans came from six sites. You have already read the introduction to Wiercinski's paper and he discussed only two sites. Why do you want to spread this falsehood. Your insistence on writing untruths about Wiercinski's research leads me to conclude that you are not really interested in presenting a balanced view of Wiercinski's research. It appears to me your only purpose is to spread misinformation to deny the importance of Wiercinski's research, and imply that the skeletons examined by Wiercinski were not from the Olmec period.Clyde Winters 22:15, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Clyde Winters: you are violating Wikipedia policies

Clyde Winters please see these links:

• wikipedia is not a soapbox

• wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought

The consequence of this is that wikipedia reccommends that researchers do not contribute to feel where they them selves have done significant research, and not to reference one self. The day that your research become widely accepted I am sure that it will be published in a peerreviewed journal and then someone else well cite it here. Guidelines are simple: Don't cite your own research. Don't write your personal opinions. Stay away from topics about which you are too passionate to write objectively.Maunus 07:56, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

.MaunusPlease demonstrate where I am using the piece as a soapbox. It is made clear that "You are free to write about yourself or projects you have a strong personal involvement in".I was mentioned in the original article, which included links to my work. I just up dated the piece with citations from books and articles that reflect current research relating to African epigraphy. Much of this material is well known to anyone who seriously researches this area.

This is not original research.In this piece I have not proposed "any theories and solutions, original ideas, defining terms, coining new words, etc". What original thought is published in the piece. Any article for an Encyclopeadia should reflect current research in the field. The evidence presented in the African section is based on recent mtDNA research. Are you saying that the article should only include data not supported by current research? The original piece discussed mtDNA, I only presented the recent research on Mexican and African admixture. How can this be original research when it was done by other scientist who published their work in refereed journals?Clyde Winters 12:19, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Also: don't use Weasel words:

• it was not surprising that Wiercinski found affinities between African and ancient Chinese populations, because everyone knows that many Negro/African /Oceanic skeletons. (No, everyone doesn't know that.)

[edit] Clyde Winters is not Publishing Original Material

Maunus You are wrong the contribution made to the Olmec page is not original research. It is just a reflection of the (current) research that exist relating to the Olmecs.

It was claimed in the original African section that there was no mtDNA research relating to Mexicans and Africans, that Africans did not have writing during the period the Olmec existed, and no discussion of the Olmec skeletons that were found to be African by Wiercinski. You may not have known of the recent mtDNA research relating to Mexican and African admixture and Wiercinski's article from the Polish anthropological journal Swiatowit on the Olmec skeletons from Cerro de les Mesas and Tlatilco , but the fact that these sites are Olmec is made clear in R. A. Diehl's, The Olmecs: America's First Civilization. There is nothing in the piece that is original research. This research may be new to you but it is available to anyone that visits a good library and keeps up with the literature in the field. Don't you think that any person writing an Encyclopeadia contribution should know the research relating to the topic they are writing about? I don't see why you are making this false claim against me when the citations in the piece reflect current research.Clyde Winters 12:19, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Diehl is definitely not advocating african origins of the Olmecs, he states that a particular site is olmec. Wiercinski states something about skeletons found at that site. Drawing new conclusions from those two sources IS original research, since neither of the sources draw the conclusions that you reach. While Wiercinski maybe be head of the Warsovian Anthropology department he is not an authority on the olmec culture, but only on physical antrhopology, the study you refer to is his only study publisheed in english but published in a polish. And citing your own self published works, which you have done quite a few times is definitely a soapboax strategy. Also you have repeatedly been caught in drawing conclusions that are not supported by the referenced literature and twisting quotes. Maunus 14:06, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

I never said anywhere in my piece that Diehl claimed an African origin of the Olmec. I said he mentions Tlatilco as an Olmec site. It is Wiercinski who claims that the skeletons from Cerro de les Mesas and Tlatilco were from Olmec horizons not me .

I never claimed that Wiercinski is an anthrority on Meso-America. Like you admit--he is a physical anthropologist. Physical anthropologist examine bones and can illuminate their ethnic/racial identity. This makes it clear that Wiercinski's conclusions were based on his extensive experience and training. I have only reported the findings of Wiercinski.

As I said earlier, the original article included references to my work and websites I have not done any soap boxing.

But your efforts to protray Wiercinski's work in the context of examining skeletons at six sites instead of Cerro de les Mesas and Tlatilco, eventhough he makes this clear in his article, shows that you can not be trusted to reliably report what you read and you are presenting original research since this is not part of his article. It is clear that since you don't believe Africans were among the Olmecs you will go to any lengths to maintain this fiction even print falsehoods. Shame on you.Clyde Winters 22:33, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

I have not edited the article, so dont accuse me of anything, you are the one pushing it here. Wiercinski is not the only physical anthropologist who has studied the Olmecs but he is the only one to have come to these results. And while it might possibly be true that Olmecs were africans or from atlantis or mars I will dispute those who argue that they were untill they provide evidence that is not obviously tampered with and unreliable. I don't say that it is impossible that olmecs are black, I just say that I want REAL evidence. And I find it sad that the injustices done by white biased racial scholars now have to be repeated by "afrocentrists". Maunus 22:43, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Manus if I made this claim I offer you my apology. Madman has admitted that he has been doing the editing.

Manus are you claiming that scientist who have found genetic admixture between Africans and Mexicans Afrocentrists? Are you claiming that the editors of the refereed journals who published their articles Afrocentrists? Is Dr. Wiercinski an Afrocentrist? He is a reputable physical anthropologist why do you believe Wiercinski said the skeletons were Africans if this was not his finding? If skeletal and epigraphic evidence discovered during archaeological excavations is not REAL evidence, what is?Clyde Winters 23:56, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Clean up note section

The note section is a mess and completely impossible to decipher. It should be purged. Notes should have concise references or fringe material at the most. Not half the article.Maunus 21:53, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Manus this is your opinion. The notes are divided into subsections so anyone interested in following the discussion can find their way easily.Clyde Winters 00:02, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

yes now they are. Yester day they looked like a chinese newspaper.Maunus 06:14, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Tlatilco & Cerro de las Mesa

I made two clear and factual statements about Tlatilco and Cerro de las Mesas in the article. Mr Olmec98, Wiercinski says in his article itself that the skeletons are from the Classic period, so that is what should appear in the article. Thanks, Madman 08:05, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

AgreedClyde Winters 11:38, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Comment about Book of Mormon

"However, the book mentions things that are known not to have been part of the Olmec culture, such as iron, silk and elephants. This speculation is not supported by any aspect of conventional Mesoamerican scholarship." This sentence is a total mess, archeology cannot prove that something didn't exist, just that something did exist. It's not true that any of these things were "known not to have been part of the Olmec culture." To the contrary, there's evidence (of course inconclusive and evolving) that some of these aspects may have been present such as the existence of elephants way back (which may or may not have survived until 1200 BC), silk in other cultures around similar time periods, etc. Needs a rewrite to make it a fact "Critics claim that..." rather than unsubstantiated POV speculation. (Comment left by User:Gldavies

I moved this to the Talk page rather than leaving it as a comment in the article.

I think it is very very safe to say that iron and silk were utterly unknown to any New World culture before 1519. By your logic, Gldavies, we could not say that anything was unknown to the Olmecs so long as it was in use during the same period somewhere in the world, including chariots, triremes, and fireworks.

To get extreme, could we even say that airplanes were unknown to the Olmecs?

While there were indeed mammoths in the prehistoric Mexico -- and humans who hunted them -- there is no evidence that they lasted beyond perhaps 8000 BC. Elephants never existed in the New World.

Thanks, Madman 03:46, 5 April 2007 (UTC)