Talk:Olmec

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Olmec article.
Article policies
Archives: 1
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:
NB: Assessment ratings and other indicators given below are used by the Project in prioritising and managing its workload.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the Project's quality scale.
Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the Project's importance scale.
WikiProject Mesoamerica priority open tasks: (click "show" to expand)
Mexico Portal
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Mexico, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to Mexico on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the Project's quality scale.
(If you rated the article please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.)
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.
This article is part of Latter Day Saint movement WikiProject, an attempt to provide comprehensive and detailed information about the Latter Day Saint movement and Mormonism on Wikipedia. To participate in the project, edit this article, visit the List of articles about the Latter Day Saint movement, the project page, and/or join the discussion. For writing guidelines about contributing to the project, you may want to read Wikipedia:Manual of Style (Latter Day Saints) and Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Latter Day Saints)
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the Project's quality scale.
(If you rated the article please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.)
Olmec is included in the 2007 Wikipedia for Schools, or is a candidate for inclusion in future versions. Please maintain high quality standards, and make an extra effort to include free images, because non-free images cannot be used on the CDs.
Other languages WikiProject Echo has identified Olmec as a foreign language featured article. You may be able to improve this article with information from the French language Wikipedia.
Archive
Archives
Archive 1 (May 2005 to Sep 2006)


Contents

[edit] Invention of Zero

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

I agree that no more than a passing mention is needed -- I'm presently working to keep/make this a survey article and there's a lot more material (e.g. on agriculture & diet, history of studies) that is needed. I added the cross-reference as suggested and tried to make the sentences more Olmec-specific. Do the present two sentences qualify as a "passing mention"?
Also, I don't see the apparent contradiction. Could someone be more specific? Thanks, Madman 11:17, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
It already got deleted. But we need a cite still - are examples of long count to be found outside the Maya area or not?
We need one sentence talking about the Long Count calendar, with a citation, and a second sentence mentioning the hypothesis that the Olmecs may have invented it, with its own citation. If there is no such citation, then the sentence should be omitted completely. If the Olmec had nothing to do with the Long Count calendar, then I don't see any reason to include mention of it in this article at all. Cbdorsett 12:02, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
I tried again to clean up the paragraphs, and merged the calendar & zero sections for better flow. Regarding citations, there already is a citation on the "artifacts with the 8 earliest Long Count dates were found outside the Maya homeland", and the image shows the second earliest Long Count date, which was found on an artifact at Tres Zapotes, an Olmec site. Let me see if I can improve the citations. For example, I've often considered writing an article specifically detailing the location of these eight artifacts, with map if possible - would that help? And speaking of help, thanks for your help, Madman 14:58, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
One possibility would be to create an article like List of Long Count monument dates or List of Mesoamerican stelae by Long Count date, and start accumulating data in a tabular format (which could be arranged either in pure chronological order, or region/culture then chronological, or both). Maybe also a List of Mesoamerican sites with Long Count inscriptions alphasorted could be useful too.--cjllw | TALK 00:44, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Olmec black history

Should be mentioned. Even though many whites oppose this idea, it is worth maerit and has some evidence which should be permited in the article as at the very least as an alternate theory. I'm going to add a bit about it—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Qtang (talk • contribs) 13 March 2007.

Reference to the "out of Africa" theory is made in the Alternative origin speculations section in this article and in a separate article entitled Olmec alternative origin speculations. You are welcome to add referenced information to that article. Unreferenced material will be deleted. Thanks, Madman 22:41, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
"Even though many whites oppose this idea..." What kind of crap is this? Which "whites" oppose the idea? And who do you define as "white" anyway? Listen, whoever you are, in future keep your stupid racist comments to yourself. --Jquarry 03:05, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
I am not white and i oposse that idea

Mexxxicano 16:00, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

The Olmecs weren't Black Africans; they were Australoid (the same race as the Australian Aborigines and Melanesians.

Arnie Gov 11:26, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

It doesn't matter where black people live on this planet. They are still black people. All of black peoples hair isn't kinky like all white peoples hair isn't dead straight. There are even Nubians that can be found with loose cropped hair. Because of their blackness, the Aborigines have faced as much evil and hatred in Australia as black people have in "The Home Of The Brave". Because of your comment I hope that the Australians now realize the resource that they've wasted. However the Olmecs spoke traces of the Mande language which is a West African dialect. Tom 05/30/07

Have the Afro-centrists gone completely mad? Where do you people stop? Why don't you focus instead on investigating the alleged "noble African" roots of the Venusian and Martian civilizations instead of polluting reasonable articles with blatant lies or relativistic fairy tales. We have to draw the line on this. Koalorka (talk) 20:48, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Someone that you don't respect can't tell you anything that will impress you. Afro-centrists have been relegated to this category. So there's a pretty good chance that you're going to ignore this archaeological report. www.geocities.com/Athens/Academy/8919/decip1.html. You're probably going to claim it to be an afro-centric bunch of garbage even though the majority of the researchers are not black and wrote their findings decades before the term afro-centric was invented. There is no greater evidence of African influence than the heads themselves. Black people are very capable of identifying themselves even if other people are not. You would have as hard a time of convincing me that the Olmecs weren't black as you would in convincing me that I'm not black. If you don't know when you're looking at a black person, then you'll just have to not know. But don't expect black people to join you in not knowing. Tom 04/23/04

Ah Tom, back again I see. Perhaps you posted the wrong URL, following it one finds not an archaeological report, produced by actual archaeologists, but just another lengthy essay from sometime-contributor here Dr Winters, which we've all been over many times before. As I'm sure you know, Dr Winters is not a million miles away from the afrocentrist camp, and I reckon that he'd readily confirm if asked that no-one in Mesoamerican studies has picked up his novel 'decipherments'. Isn't there anything new to report? One thing I might agree with you, that the heads constitute the "best evidence" for the African-origins hypothesis. If I were a supporter of that idea, I would find that extremely depressing- after all this time looking, not a single artefact or genuine remains to confirm any connection, at all; just a vague and non-unique resemblance to a cartoon-like conception of what a real African ought to look like. Given the great genetic diversity within Africa, it would be remarkable if you were unable to find at least some African population who'd resemble any given carved statue of a human face, Olmec or not. --cjllw ʘ TALK 00:36, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Minor Grammar Mistakes

Under "History of scholarly research on the Olmec":

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

This should probably be edited to:

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

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

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

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

[edit] Protection

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

It's not so much the alternative theorists but the schoolboys. For whatever reason, this article seems to be a special target for the typical juvenile graffiti. Madman 11:57, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
I don't think it's worse here than at other pages. I'd say drop the protection - maybe Richard Diehl himself is planning to contribute anonymously tomorrow... graffitti we can just revert.·Maunus· ·ƛ· 12:00, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Alternative Origin Speculations

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

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

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

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

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

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

Good, we are in agreement then.·Maunus· ·ƛ· 19:03, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
This is an article about the Olmec and therefore more than a sentence or two concerning these way-out-of-the-mainstream theories belongs in the Olmec alternative origin speculations article, which discusses these matters at more length. In fact, I don't even think that the most recent wording belongs in this article, but in deference to Maunus's opinion, I won't revert.
And this is certainly a strange argument: that it's racist to champion the overwhelming evidence that indigenous peoples created the Olmec civilization rather than African immigrants. To me, it's quite the opposite - that the folks who push African origins are pushing a racial viewpoint.
In any case, you are welcome to add referenced material to the Olmec alternative origin speculations. Madman 19:34, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
You're confusing two separate issues. The argument is not on who created the Olmec civilization, i.e. Olmecs alone or Olmecs with outside help, but on the biological makeup of the Olmecs themselves. The kinds of racist scholars I'm talking about are the ones who on one hand would dismiss the possibility of African ancestry for the Olmecs because it implies that they had the technology to reach the "New World" before Columbus - and no way brown people beat white people to the punch on anything! - while at the same time dismissing the merits of the Olmec civilization, instead attributing their accomplishments to outside (even ALIEN) interference. Godheval 21:55, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
So, you're saying that there are "scholars" who attribute Olmec civilization to outside or alien "interference"?? There is absolutely no mainstream Mesoamerican scholar who makes such a claim. Madman 23:50, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
It's not as common now. May have only been a few loonies out on the fringe. But yeah, that kind of thing was going around. And even if not to the extremes of Aliens, the idea that there had to have been outside interference for these "primitives" to have built such great works - was indicative of the racism of the time. Godheval 15:36, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

You're right, it's not a good argument. Nor was it one. I was, explicitly, an attack. I prefer that method to the more covert style of attacking that goes with power-playing on Wikipedia, such as maintaining a racist argument to be a "consensus" without adequate support (in recognized scholarship, not internet advocacy), while demanding citations for anything to the contrary. I'm not interested in all of the Wikipedia "rules", while oligarchic article-policing continues to occur. Spare me. Godheval 06:12, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
Discourgaging personal attacks as being unconstructive is hardly something unique to the 'wikipedia ruleset', so I don't see what you are hoping to achieve by resorting to one. Just stick to the topic at hand, I'm pretty sure if you were to look into the writings of van Sertima or Diop you'd readily find a source for similar statements that the rejection of their 'African influences on Olmec' hypotheses by mainstream Mesoamerican scholarship are due in some measure to the view that Africans should never have been capable of such a thing. Even so, this in no way proves or disproves that there is any actual bias there as a motivating factor, and it should not be stated as such in the article.
Equally, when contemporary Mesoamericanist sources explain that on the contrary, the discounting of African influences comes down to a complete lack of convincing material and linguistic evidence for any pre-Columbian Africa-Americas contact, there should be no characterising of this consensus as 'racist argument', even if van Sertima et al claim it to be.--cjllw | TALK 08:36, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
This is the last thing I'm going to say about this. I'm tired of arguing with oblivious people. Nowhere did I say that everyone who argues against the African origins theory is approaching it with a racist predisposition. I said that there certainly is racism in Western scholarship which has in some cases been the motivating factor. Frankly, if you think that NO ONE was motivated by racism, then you're a fool. I'm done. The institution wins. Again. I'll still search for those sources, but if in the meantime you want to disavow all knowledge of racism in Western scholarship, be my guest... Godheval 14:28, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

Eh? Archaeology is primarily concerned with reconstructing cultures from the physical remains left behind -monuments, structures, alterations to the environment, etc- and so knowing what language they spoke is not a prerequisite to being able to describe or date a culture. There are rather many antique cultures for whom we have simply no evidence what language or language family was spoken, but are identified on the basis of their material cultural remains.
The simple fact is that the identification of a resemblance (let alone an actual translation) between Mesoamerican and African or any other script is not supported by Mesoamericanists, and Wiener and Winters are very much on the outer in maintaining there is one.
Incidentally, most of the New World inscriptions they put forward as encoding some African language are not actually associated with the time period and localities associated with the culture which built those colossal heads, and are quite a few centuries later. For eg, the Tuxtla Statuette bears a date equivalent to one in the 2nd century CE, nearly a thousand years later than the period in which the colossal heads were made. Until the dating published last year of the Cascajal Block find, the only inscriptions associated with the period and region of the colossal heads (ie, the Olmec, as opposed to epi-Olmec or another successor) consisted of a handful of isolated glyphs.--cjllw ʘ TALK 02:47, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
I would like to also add that the same celts (from Offering 4 at La Venta) that Winters believes show Vai characters have been interpreted by another scholar, Chen Hanping, as showng Chinese "Shang dynasty" characters. However, Mesoamerican scholars find that the celts in question were once part of a larger piece which showed more typical Olmec iconography. Madman 03:33, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
That's funny, because that would validate the genetic study that showed the ancient Linzi population were closer to Turks, Germans and Icelanders rather than the current populace. Closer to the Tocharians, who were like celtics. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.206.195.109 (talk) 02:14, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

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

Er... self-defined? Seriously? Curious, then, that the living descendants of pre-Columbian Mesoamerican peoples themselves do not at all self-identify in this way- so just who then is 'pompously imposing' a racial identity from outside, if not van Sertima and his ilk? The indigenous peoples of Mesoamerica are most certainly not clamouring to be identified as black African descendants, as any review of the organisations they form to promote their cause as native/indigenous Americans will soon show.
We of course have absolutely no data on what race or ethnicity the Olmec themselves identified as, so here too you are very wide of the mark. Far from attracting any sympathy from the peoples themselves, this attempt to supplant their own indigenous Mesoamerican heritage with a foreign one has, on more than one occasion, been called racist itself [1][2]--cjllw ʘ TALK 03:42, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
Ah Tom, you're at it again I see. Given up on the Egytians have you? Paul B 00:19, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[edit] Arbitrary new section break 1

Earlier there was a discussion about the need for a citation for racisim in Western Scholarship, Lies My Teacher Told Me by James W. Loewen, is a good one. There is also a good discussion in Loewen's piece here about why this discussion of the Olmecs is so contentious. A suggested change for the 'alternative origins' section: it is problematic that the framing of this section is laden with the POV that the 'alternative origins' is a known discredited position. In truth, it is a hotly debated topic as the discussion above shows. A person who finds the 'alternative origins' argument plausible should be given the space to make their case in this section. It would make for a more representative discussion--Justinda1970 (talk) 13:04, 17 November 2007 (UTC).
There is an entire article devoted to this issue: Olmec alternative origin speculations. Thanks, Madman (talk) 13:30, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

If others would like to take a look at Wurtheneu's for themselves please go here[3]

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

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

Wurtheneu's comments were made in 1966 some twenty years before the word Afrocentricty entered, but he is part of a long line of scholars of both African and European ancestry who posed substantive critiques of scholarship minimizing the role of African people in world and western history. For those who are interested, look for the work of Gerald Massey who wrote "Ancient Egypt the Light of the World" or John Jackson's "Christianity Before Christ". This marginalizing of scholarship has an agenda of its own and whenever someone does not like someone's POV they frequently scream "agenda" (think the debate on global warming). Just saying someone is an Afrocentric scholar does not discredit them, it just labels them, you still have to do the work of looking at the evidence and proving that it is without substance. In the case of the Olmec Heads, there are literally tons of evidence (one was found to weigh 18 tons). To continue, just saying that someone is not a specialist in a field does not mean that their argument is without merit--take a look at Kuhn's discussion of The Structure of Scientific Revolutions [4]to see that often it is often "outsiders" that push a field forward because they can see past the cliche. The community would be benefited by a more even handed treatment of this topic and it should not be locked as it is making the issue appear more settled than it is. Again, who has locked this page and who gave them the key?--Justinda1970 (talk) 22:55, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Hi. Any Administrator around here can, and from time to time does, protect an article against persistent vandalism, edit warring, and other unconstructive behaviours that significantly impair the article's stability. In this case, the article was protected against a recent peak in schoolboyish vandalism activity of the "Hello. I like poop." variety, and not (in case you were wondering) as a means of preventing newcomers from adding info re supposed African similarities or anything else. Indeed, we've had folks like Clyde Winters himself editing here and discussing the articles' approach to this issue, and as pointed out earlier there's already several mentions and separate articles devoted to various diffusionist theories. There's no arbitrary exclusion going on, these counterviews are represented in wikipedia's articles, although properly only in relative proportion to the viewpoints' degree of acceptance and currency. Please see in particular the subsection on undue weight in the NPOV policy.
I quite disagree that "Competing theories" would be a more accurate title, than "Alternative origins". It is not the case here that there are several more-or-less equally supported interpretations of the collective evidence undergoing active debate in the field. On the contrary, there is a single and overwhelmingly maintained interpretation (viz., that the Olmec & other Mesoamerican cultures developed indigenously and quite without influence from or exchange with cultures in Africa, Asia, etc), and any viewpoints that postulate otherwise are distinctly and numerically minority, marginalised, and fringe accounts. However you wish to describe them, it's not mere sophistry to distinguish mainstream from non-mainstream interpretations, but necessary to provide the complete picture.
Characterising this as a 'hotly debated topic' is also a bit misleading- that debate is not taking place within Mesoamerican scholarship, and is not a point of contention among Mesoamericanists. There are genuine hot-topic debates within the field, such as over the degree and nature of Olmec influence over other Mesoamerican cultures; but not whether they were Africans, Lamanites, Atlanteans, etc.
Although it may be well publicised in some quarters, the 'Olmecs-were-Africans' contention is nowadays nigh-on exclusively carried on by proponents from outside the field. While (as you note) this doesn't by itself invalidate the claim or their credentials, it does have a bearing on how an encyclopaedia should approach the state and degree of scientific consensus on a topic. Where notable enough, we can describe what these alternative views are, who holds them and the evidence cited in support (and against), without however misleading the reader by giving the false impression that the question excites any support from researchers active in the field.
In any event, since it's been a few weeks now I've unprotected the article, on assumption that vandalism interest in this as a target has had time to drop a couple of notches from intolerable down to tiresome and merely annoying. If it picks up again the article may be reprotected; any edits on alternative origins etc can be adressed and discussed on merit, hopefully. Please do read through the prior discussions here first, which includes development of an operating consensus that this main article is not the place to delve into the details of any of these alternative claims. --cjllw ʘ TALK 03:25, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Altar 5 from La Venta depections in this article

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

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

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

The question is to what extent the Olmec practised sacrifice (they at least practised bloodletting - autosacrifice), and so the image of Altar 5, which is very famous in its own right, goes along with the text, and provides a very prominent link to the side photos. Moreover, I don't know that the carvings of the "lively" were-jaguar babies on the side necessarily argues against infant sacrifice -- they could just be the "before" pictures and the carving on the front is the "after" picture.
But, in any case, I wasn't trying to argue one way or another, but just mentioning the question. I didn't think the question of sacrifice was "controversial", just unknown. Madman 04:05, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Deleted this portion

"The only other ancient culture known to have achieved such high temperatures is that of Ancient Egypt.[1]"

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

Intranetusa 02:50, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

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

[edit] Semi-protected

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

[edit] The Olmecs of Afro-America

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

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

[edit] B-class

Why is this article not a GA? --andreasegde (talk) 00:45, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

I do think that this article could be rated A or Good Article -- it might be Featured with a bit of clean-up -- but no one has bothered to take it thru the process. Madman (talk) 02:30, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
I think it could be GA with a quite small effort. Why not nominate it?·Maunus· ·ƛ· 08:46, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] =Blatant Spam in "Overview" Section

When did the following get added to the Article?

"...among them San Lorenzo Tenochtitlán,where they learned to teleport, La Venta, where they invented toaster strudel, Tres Zapotes, where they ate the strudel and Laguna de los Cerros, where they all ended up dying."

Very sad the disrespect shown by some. § —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jrbarnett (talk • contribs) 19:00, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Gone now. It was a school site registered to the State of Illinois, I expect it to be blocked for a while.--Doug Weller (talk) 19:03, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
72 hour block. The problem is presumably there are good editors there as well! --Doug Weller (talk) 19:24, 2 May 2008 (UTC)