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 Resources— Selected resources and compendia of Mesoamerican sources and studies Citations— Bibliography and pre-filled citations for Mesoamerican sources Journals— Links to selected journals publishing Mesoamerican research, example citation templates Article listing— Inventory and watchlists of WP:MESO articles and their talk pages (Article Watchlist)—(Talkpage Watchlist) Worklists— Project worklists and activities
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.
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, Maya civilization, 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 in Mesoamerican cultures • History of Mesoamerica (Paleo-Indian) • Gender in Maya society • 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 article is within the scope of WikiProject Human Genetic History, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of genetic genealogy, genetics-based population history, and associated theory and methods. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.

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.

For earlier discussions, see Talk:Olmec alternative origin speculations/Archive 1

Contents 1 Did the Olmecs created the Mande/Mende Empire?? 2 Eureka 3 BEWARE THE OSTRICH! 4 ATTENTION ALL AFRICANS: YOU ARE BEING REDESIGNATED 5 The Human Race 6 LOL 7 Believe it or not 8 Alternative speculations 9 Reversion of edits by Olmec98 10 Editing out of recent (Aug 2006) comments 10.1 More deletions 11 Olmec98's 'suggested changes', moved from user talk 12 Changes to Section on Skeletal Evidence 13 Clyde Winters: you are violating Wikipedia policies 14 Clyde Winters is not Publishing Original Material 15 Clean up note section 16 Tlatilco & Cerro de las Mesa 17 Comment about Book of Mormon 18 Consensus 19 Image 20 Removed these sentences 21 Clyde Winters 22 Bearded man 23 Changes in Epigraphy section 24 a caution to regular editors 25 This article should not attempt to prove that Olmecs were indigenous

[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 [1]. 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. [2] [3] --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)

     ^ no one could have said it better24.126.115.119 (talk) 00:25, 4 March 2008 (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[[4]]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[[5]].These are same HLA-B alleles common to Africans #REDIRECT[[6]]

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[[7]].

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: [8])

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[[9]] 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[[10]] . 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[[11]] . 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)

I would opine that it is not necessary to be an Afrocentrist to project the hypothesis of an African origin for civilization in the Americas. One need only share a racist view of indigenous Americans. That is, by holding to a view which is wholly unsupported by any credible evidence (thus far), and presuming that indigenous Americans were incapable of evolving their own civilizations. This viewpoint among some has gone so far as to include the influence of extra-terrestrials. Tmangray 16:32, 10 October 2007 (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)

[edit] Consensus

Recently I changed the page to say "Criticism" of the African Origins theory, instead of "Mainstream Consensus", because there are not nearly enough citations to comprise a "consensus". One citation does not in any way show that the majority of researchers subscribe to one point of view or another. No one person (in this case Taube) speaks for the whole body of Mesoamericanists. There is nothing for the article to gain by citing a consensus. You show me something - like a shitload more sources - or I'm not going to accept it as a consensus view. Enough said. Godheval 00:54, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Godheval, firstly that brief section para as it stands now with your reverting my edits does not actually contain any specific criticism of the African Origins theory, so the title you've selected is a misnomer. "Mainstream consensus" is a closer fit with the para's actual content, to wit a summary statement of a consensus position (ie Olmec and Mesoamerican achievements in general arose from local, not Old World, influences and traditions).

Do you genuinely doubt that a great majority, if not near a totality, of mainstream (ie peer-reviewed specialised publications in the field) scholarship from the past forty or fifty years maintains that Olmec culture has indigenous pre-Columbian origins, and not African, European, Asian or any other? Or is your reversion only to make a point (readily accepted) that more citations are needed?

In either case, given you've requested over at the Olmec article some time to assemble the sources to back your contentions made there, and have those changes remain in the text with a citation placeholder tag, I'll do the same and restore the amended passage with some {{fact}} tags for later support.--cjllw | TALK 09:12, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image

What exactly is this image and caption supposed to mean? This appears to be a photograph of this stela: Stela 3. The image has been digitally manipulated in some way to make it less clear. Why I don't really know, but I assume this distortion of the original serves to provide evidence that the depiction is of a bearded person. I guess this is in support of some "alternative origin" theory. I am only guessing, but since "noted Mormon researcher John L. Sorenson" is said to refer to this image, I assume that his claim that it is bearded is in some way part of an argument that the alleged beard implies a connection to biblical partiarchs. Should we be accepting deliberately distorted images? Paul B 16:21, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Another possibility is that the evidently false claim that this is a drawing is designed to get around image copyright problems. Since the relevance of the image is not even explained I think it should go. Paul B 17:58, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

I'd be quite confident that the img's uploader, Madman, had no sinister or theory-pushing agenda behind the modifications. Madman will probably come along in a little while and clarify.--cjllw ʘ TALK 03:01, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

I have changed the caption on the image to hopefully better reflect the article content, as well as changing the article content to better connect with the image.

I had decided to call the image a "painting" over at Commons, which I think better describes the work than "drawing". It is a four-shade painting of perhaps 15% of Stela 3 and I used several photographs and drawings to get it to this point. And yes I deliberately made some choices about what should be in the painting and what shouldn't, to better highlight the major features. But it certainly wasn't "distorted" to make a point and it is no more an attempt to get around copyright law than my other drawings.

Thanks, Madman 04:18, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Sorry about the paranoid rantings about the image. I've kept aqway from Olmec pages for a while. As it happens I already noted this in a post above on this page dated 22:39, 22 August 2006 (UTC). In context the paper is clearly making a point about post-Columbian admixture. Paul B 22:15, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Removed these sentences

Folks: After a thorough review of the paper/article, I removed the following sentence: " Underhill, et al. found that the Mayan people have an African Y chromosome -ref- Underhill, et al. (1996)-ref-". Underhill et al. do not say that at all. They do say this: "One Mayan male, previously shown (12) to have an African Y chromosome, had the 194-bp C haplotype". Thanks, Madman 21:22, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

I also removed the following sentences: "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." This sentence is unreferenced and the Laponoid group has typically been comprised of Laplanders and other northern Europeans. For example, see these maps, or this page. Thanks, Madman 03:08, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

I also removed this sentence: "Dr. Leo Wiener, in Africa and the Discovery of America, suggested that the Olmec probably used a Mandé writing system. Dr. Wiener concluded that glyphs on the Tuxtla Statuette were analogous to Manding writing engraved on rocks in Mandeland and identical to the Manding (Malinke-Bambara) writing used in Africa." After a thorough review of this books (see this page), I could find no reference by Dr. Wiener to such epigraphic evidence. Madman 02:52, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

I added the Leo Wiener quote because you failed to check the correct source. The book cited above is only volume 1, the quote comes from volume3.Clyde Winters (talk) 18:22, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Clyde Winters

I have noticed several references to Clyde Winters in this article and i think this destroys the creditability of the page, Winters is not a good source unless some one has sound objection i plan on removing any of his original research. - ishmaelblues

Clyde Winters actually wrote much of it. Paul B 10:01, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Basically all of the article is his Original Research. I don't know how a credible article about this topic could be written, but I'd love to see it done.·Maunus· ·ƛ· 10:26, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

We know it's baloney but Clyde quotes all sorts of obscure sources that are difficult to contradict, especially when they involve the work of Antonio Arnaiz-Villena, a respectable geneticist given to making nonsensical statements about history. Paul B 10:33, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

ishmaelblues, please do not remove references of Dr Winters' work. How did you arrive at your conclusion that his work is "not a good source"? Dr. Winters is certainly one of the most prominent advocates of the Olmec-African connection, which comprises the bulk of this article. I believe that, by-and-large, this article is properly documented and presents a balanced view of what is a popular subject. Would you rather that Wikipedia not mention this theory at all? Or just ridicule it?? If you have some NPOV material to add, please do, but do not censor others' work because you believe it is "not a good source". Thanks, Madman 18:16, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Bearded man

Dear Clovis Point:

The man shown on La Venta Stela 3 is a bearded man. As just-now referenced by me (today's footnote 28), Michael D. Coe explicitly says he is (and also describes him as having an "aquiline nose"). And to me and to just about everyone who views it, that does appear to be an accurate description.

So, let's just be simple and direct. Thanks, Madman (talk) 03:23, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Well, of course it looks like a man with a beard. I was trying to emphasize that other interpretations are always possible (this whole article is about divergent interpretations). However, I don't know what the "bearded man" is supposed to prove, unless one believe's that all artwork is a direct, realistic-as-possible, imitation of life; and further believes that Native Americans are genetically incapable of growing facial hair. I personally would prefer a photograph of the Stela, rather than a drawing/painting which gives prominence to particular features. On the other hand, I don't have any photos on hand, so the current image will have to do. ClovisPt (talk) 18:51, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

incidentally what is "non-hemispheric" supposed to mean here? Wouldn't extra-hemispheric be more correct? And wouldn't a completely different word be preferrable?·Maunus· ·ƛ· 19:05, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Another word would certainly be fine with me.

I don't think that the term "bearded" is supposed to "prove" anything, but I certainly get the impression when Coe and when Christopher Pool (in his 2007 book) draw attention to the beard, they imply that beards are uncommon among Mesoamericans (which is true) and that is why this particular depiction has suggested extra- or non-hemispheric visitors to many observers.Madman (talk) 14:43, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Beards are uncommon among Native Americans, true. However, Native Americans are simply more hairless than Europeans, not hairless, and beards cannot be seen as proof that a person, statute or image is European.Dougweller (talk) 11:34, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Changes in Epigraphy section

I have made changes in this section to show that Rafinesque and Leo Wiener both supported an African origin for writing in Mexico. The chnages are not self promotion they represent factual support for the theory that Africans invented the Olmec writing system.

Manus should not be allowed to edit out these changes until he proves that the references cited in this section are false.Clyde Winters (talk) 04:11, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

I definitely agree that continued wholesale reversion of these changes without any discusson is not the right way to proceed. While there is some digression that is not appropriate for this article (e.g. "The British took over Suriname and ended slavery in 1799"), there is also some pertinent and apparently well-documented material. Madman (talk) 05:18, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

It is selfpromotion when Mr. Clyde Winters writes that Dr. Clyde Winters is the only one to have succesfully deciphered the olmec script - it is also clearly misleading, since he has not, and no scholar except Mr. Winters have yet accepted his deciphering. When he puts together different circumstantial evidence to draw the conclusion that the vai script is "ancient" that is synthesis of material and OR. When he argues for likeness between two unrelated languages using only one word which has a coincidental likeness then that is OR and OR that would never get publication in a peer-reviewed journal (which is why Mr. Winters have published these same theories on free hosted websites since the mid nineties). All this taken together justifies wholesale reversion of Clyde Winters recent edits. When he furthermore cannot write in a proper style or use references correctly and finally signs his username in the middle of an article then I cannot see why I should be expected to do anything other than revert. ·Maunus· ·ƛ· 10:19, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree; well stated. ClovisPt (talk) 18:28, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Manus and Madman this piece was not self promotion it is further support for the theory that the Olmec writing may be of African origin. Below are the changes:

Some, particularly Dr. Clyde Winters, claim that some Olmec icons are similar to the Vai script which includes all of the signs used in the Libyco-Berber writing system, in particular, the symbols on the Tuxtla Statuette and the celts in Offering 4 at La Venta and Cascajal Tablet. Dr. Winters based his research on that of Samuel Rafinesque and Leo Wiener. Rafinesque noted that the Mayan inscriptions were probably related to the Libyco-Berber writing of Africa.^[32]

Leo Wiener, in Africa and the Discovery of America (V.3) claimed that the Tuxtla Statuette possessed signs found on the Rock Inscriptions common to Mandingo sites in the Western Sudan.^[33] He wrote "Precisely such gadwals have been found in the region of the Mandingos, and these have glyphs that bear amazing resemblance to the Central American glyphs, especially those of the Tuxtla statuette, where we find similar signs encysted in squares and parallelograms".^[34]

The signs associated with the Mande writing systems are found throughout West Africa and date back to ancient times. Many of these signs have been found in the Tichitt area.^[35] Tichitt is an early region in West Africa first settled by Mande speakers over 3000 years ago.^[36]

All of these signs in the Saharan and Libyco-Berber writing are found in the Vai writing system. The Vai speak a Mande or Mandingo language.

Controversy surrounds the invention of the Vai writing.S.W. Koelle^[37] reported that the Vai writing was invented in 1829 or 1839 by Bukele. This has led some to consider the connection at best coincidental as the Vai script was suppose to have only been developed in the 19th century at the earliest.

This late invention of the Vai writing is disputed by Delafosse who claimed that Vai inormants told him the writing system was invented in ancient times.We know that the symbols associated with the Vai script existed prior to Bukele's alleged invention of the Vai script, because they were known to African slaves in Suriname.In 1936, M.J. Herskovits and his wife on a field trip to Suriname recorded a specimen of writing by a man while possessed by the spirit winti. Mrs. Hau, who examined the specimen wrote that component parts of the symbols written by this man were found in the Vai and other writing systems found in West Africa.^[38]

The British took over Suriname and ended slavery in 1799. Years before Bukele's alleged invention of the Vai writing. As a result,there is no way a descendant of a Suriname Maroon (runaway slave) could have produced the writing, if it had been first invented by Bukele.

Winters claimed to have deciphered the Olmec script by using Vai characters in 1979, and claimed that Olmec symbols are a script that encodes a Mande language.^[39] Winters claimed that the Olmec called themselves 'Xi" or "Si". Dr. Winters based this proposition on his decipherment of a bi-lingual Mayan-Olmec inscription.^[40] This was a breakthrough in determining the name of the Olmec people because the The Maya claim they got writing from the Tutul Xiu, a group of foreigners from zuiva, in Nonoualoco territory.^[41] In Spanish the "x" is pronounced 'sh'. This means that Xiu would be pronounced Shi-u. This corresponds to the Mande term for race Si, plus the Malinke-Bambara suffix -u , used to make the word plural.

For many reasons, these assertions have found no support among Mesoamerican researchers. While scholars have made significant progress translating the Maya script, except for Dr. Winters, researchers have yet to translate Olmec glyphs.

You claim that I wrote that Dr. Winters was the only one to successfully decipher the Olmec writing this statement is not found anywhere in the proposed revisions. As a result, why do you continue to claim that the piece is self promotion.

The piece only confirms that fact that the proposed decipherment of the Olmec writing is based on the research of a number of researchers, and confirm that Leo Wiener said what I claimed he said. It shows that the symbols found in the Vai script were in use 3000 years ago in Tichitt where the Mande people lived until they settled around the Niger River, this is important information because many people claim that West Africans did not have a native writing system; this information makes it clear that this is not true.

I will remove the staement about Suriname. I used this statement to show how Africans were already using the symbols associated with the Vai script before Bukele's alleged creation of the Vai writing. This added additional support to the antiquity of the script.

Manus, clearly you are afraid of the truth. The sources are provided can be found in any good library. I challenge you to prove my citations wrong before you allow you doxic assumptions to lead you to delete material that is material to the case for a Mande origin for the Olmec writing. Furthermore, it is still made clear that the Winters' decipherment is not accepted by the mass of MesoAmerican scholars.

Given the facts, you have no right to continue to delete this material. I have deleted material found improper.Clyde Winters (talk) 13:01, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

You sir, have not the least interest in "the truth" - you clearly only wish to advance your agenda. As for your edit not being selfpromotional I draw your attention to this diff[12] in which Clyde Winters wrote: "For many reasons, these assertions have found no support among Mesoamerican researchers. While scholars have made significant progress translating the Maya script, except for Dr. Winters, researchers have yet to translate Olmec glyphs." If this is not an attempt to promote Clyde Winters' own supposed deciphering of the Olmec script on the expense of real scholarship then I don't know what it is. I do not dispute that your references say what you say they do. I do however dispute that those references are worth the paper that they were written on, and I dispute that they can be used to draw the conclusions that you draw from them. Bringing together four separate sources (hearsay from Belafosse, hearsay from Mr. and Mrs Herskovits and Rafinesques uneducated guess about the Mayan writing systems origins (from before anyone had seen proper reproductions of mayan glyphs) and Leo Wieners astonished commentary about the amazing resemblance of squares and parallelograms on the tuxtla statuette and vai writing) to draw a controversial conclusion that has not been published in any peer-rewieved source is a clear violation of WP:SYN. You cannot advance the theory that vai-writing is ancient in this article - not untill there is a scientific journal that decide that the theory is well enough founded to publish it. The best wikipedia can do for you in your quest to advance your agenda is to state those facts that are undisputably true: namely that "Scholars, including Leo Wiener (1921), Ivan van Sertima (1976, 1992 and 1995) and Clyde Ahmad Winters (1981) have argued that the Olmec hieroglyphic script is based on Vai writing - although the Vai script is generally thought to be only two hundred years old." Anything beyond that would be misrepresenting facts and would reflect poorly on wikipedias reliability. ·Maunus· ·ƛ· 18:44, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Manus none of your comments justify deleting this material. Now that I am back from vacation I will respond to your comments. First, this is not a peer reviewed journal it is a section on Olmec that discuss alternative theories. You claim that no material should be published here if it has not been peer reviewed. This is a biased argument because these are alternative theories because they are not accepted by mainstream authorities.

For example, the material on Chinese relations with the Olmec was not published in a peer reviewed journal, should it be removed also?

The material I published is important for understanding the African origin of Olmec writing. It shows that Rafinesque, and Wiener noted that the early American writing systems were related to African scripts. Moreover, Wiener made a specific identification of the Tuxtla inscriptions that was confirmed by the characters used by the ancient Mande speaking people.

The idea that any statement arguing more then the contention :"Scholars, including Leo Wiener (1921), Ivan van Sertima (1976, 1992 and 1995) and Clyde Ahmad Winters (1981) have argued that the Olmec hieroglyphic script is based on Vai writing - although the Vai script is generally thought to be only two hundred years old", is not true. It fails to provide the evidence that the script may be older and fails to reflect the acturl evidence relating to the antiquity of the script.

In the original post there is discussion of the fact that the script is only 200 years old. The evidence of Hsu and Delafosse make it clear that there are traditions and archaeological evidence that illustrate that the writing probably dates pre-European contact. You can not give one view for the origin of Vai writing when the evidence shows that the view it is only 200 years old is disputed by archaeological evidence from Tichitt and other Mande settlements dating back to Olmec times.

Representation of the full record relating to the African origin of Olmec writing provides a full account of the theory relating to the African origin of the script. This material is not self promotion it just shows that the idea the Olmec writing is African is supported by a number of sources.

Your attempt to deny public access to this information reflect your own biases against the theory. You have not presented evidence that the glyphs associated with Vai script were not in use by mande speaking people in Tichitt around the time the Olmec writing originated. Your attempts to deny the facts will not make the truth disappear.Clyde Winters (talk) 15:22, 6 January 2008 (UTC) SOU

You are right that my reasoning is biased. It is boiased towards enacting Wikipedia policies. Your reasoning on the other hand demonstrates no understanding of such basic wikipedia policies as WP:NOT, WP:SOURCES and WP:FRINGE. I will spell it out for you one more time (I know I have done this several times in the past). Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a depository for information. This means that the information that is to be included in wikipedia needs to conform ceratin encyclopedic principles. These principles are laid out in the wikipedia policies which are presented to all editors upon joining the project. One of these policies describe what wikipedia is not. Part of this policy describes that wikipedia is not the right place to publish novel theories or original research, but only research that is documented and verifiable. That is what you are doing wrong: you are trying to use wikipedia as a vehicle for your own personal interpretations of evidence and thus violating wikipedia policies on Original Research. I am not required to present evidence against your theories - but you are required to demonstrate that those theories have merit by citing them to reliable sources, this is not just a requirement for the sources you build your conclusions upon but even more importantly it is a requirement that the conclusions can be demonstrated to have merit, in this case you have not, and cannot produce such demonstration since the theories are not published outsid of your own personal websites. In short wikipedia is NOT the place for you to publish your research, this you can do on your various geocities websites as you have done the past ten years.·Maunus· ·ƛ· 16:40, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Again you have not read the article. It is not about personal interpretation of evidence it is the presentation of evidence relating to alternative olmec theories. You claim that the theories are only published at my website this is false. The references to Rafinesque and Wiener show that the idea that Mexican writing is related to African scripts is supported by other researchers. Moreover, Wiener specifically pointed out that the Tuxtla symbols were related to the Mande writing system that was in use during the Tichitt civilization which dates back to Olmec times. This makes it clear that your ideas have nothing to do with wikipedia policies, they reflect your own narrow mindedness and biases.Clyde Winters (talk) 18:26, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Please don't tell me what i have and haven't read. I can accept that the article mention that the idea of a connection between Olmec writing and African writing stem back to Rafinesque and Leo Wiener since this is fact. However the attempt to "prove" that the vai script is older than 200 years is entirely on your account though and should not be mentioned. I once again refer to wikipedia policy of WP:SYN which clearly state that "Synthesizing material occurs when an editor tries to demonstrate the validity of his or her own conclusions by citing sources that when put together serve to advance the editor's position. If the sources cited do not explicitly reach the same conclusion, or if the sources cited are not directly related to the topic of the article, then the editor is engaged in original research." This is what you are doing. ·Maunus· ·ƛ· 19:11, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

There is just as much proof that the Vai writing is ancient as asserted in the revised article. These are alternative views and do not imply that the ideas are accepted by all researchers so the claim for an ancient origin is just as valid as your assertion that the script is only 200 years old. You maintain this position to justify your opinion the scripts are not related. Any statement related to the Vai script should present all sides, not just the view you accept, there is no way that presenting both sides of an issue is an attempt by myself to advance my position, it is just showing that in relation to dating the Vai script controversy exist regarding its origin.

You make it appear that dating of the Vai script is established. This is far from true. There is considerable evidence that the Vai writing was invented millennia before 1820. This view is supported by the presence of signs analogous to the Vai script being found on rocks from the Fezzan to the Niger Valley and beyond that make up the corpus of the Vai script .

Controversy surrounds the invention of the Vai script. Delafosse claimed that Vai informants told him the writing system was invented in ancient times. [b]S.W. Koelle in Narrative of an expedition into Vy country West Africa and the Discovery of a system of writing,etc.(London,1849) [/b] claimed that the writing system was invented by Bukele in 1829 or 1839.[b] David Diringer in The Alphabet (London,1968,pp.130-133)[/b] reported that there was a tradition that the writing was invented by a group of eight Vai.[b] Marcel Cohen La grande invention de l'ecriture at son evolution (Paris,1958, p. 21)[/b] believed that the Vai writing system was not invented before the 18th century, but more probably at the beginning of the 19thth century.

The story about Bukele's dream is just a cover, used by Bukele to keep members of the Gola Poro society from being angered by Bukele's open teaching of the Vai script .

We know that the symbols associated with the Vai script existed prior to Bukele's alleged invention of the Vai writing because it was known to African slaves in Suriname. In 1936, M.J. Herskovits and his wife on a field trip to Suriname recorded a specimen of writing written by a man while he was possessed by the spirit winti. Mrs. Hau, who examined the specimen wrote that "Most of the component parts of are to be found in the syllabaries of West Africa which we have just discussed"[b] (see: K.Hau, Pre-Islamic writing in West Africa, Bulletin de l'IFAN, t35, ser.B,No.1 (1973)pp.1-45).[/b]

The British took over Suriname and ended slavery in 1799. Years before Bukele's alleged invention of the Vai writing. As a result, there is no way a descendant of a Suriname Maroon (runaway slave) could have produced the writing under possession by the spirit winti if the writing was invented by Bukele.

If you read the history of Bukele's alleged invention of the Vai script we discover that although Bukele dreamt of the Vai characters he was able to "reconstruct" the symbols not by deeply meditating on the dream, he: Later Dualu retired from his work as a steward and returned to his hometown in the Vai chiefdom. But he couldn’t forget the idea of having a means of writing. He asked himself, “Why can’t we have something like this for our own Vai people?” One night he had a vision in which he saw a tall white man who said, “Dualu, come. I have a book for you and your Vai people.” The man in the vision then proceeded to show him the shapes of the Vai characters used in the Vai writing system.

When Dualu awoke, he began to write down the characters he’d seen in his vision. Sadly, there were so many he could not remember them all, so he called together his friends and fellow elders and shared with them his vision and the characters he had written down. His fellow Vai elders caught his excitement and over time, they added more characters in place of those Dualu could not remember.

This is the main give-away that the writing existed before Bukele's alleged invention. Firstly, how could "his friends and fellow elders" help him recover the Vai signs, if the signs were not already invented--since these men had not had Bukele's dream.

Secondly, before Bukele popularized the Vai script he sought protection from King Fa Toro of Goturu in Tianimani for his school. The King granted protection to the inventors of the Vai script because "The king declared himself exceedly pleased with their discovery, which as he said would soon raise his people upon a level with the Porors and Mandingoes, who hitherto had been the only book-people" [b](see: S.W. Koelle, Outline grammar of the Vai language--and an account of the discovery and nature of the Vai mode of syllabic writing, London,1854)[/b]

Bukele needed a Kings support for the teaching of anyone the Vai writing because the first schools set up to teach the script at Dshondu and Bandakoro were burned down along with the Vai manuscripts found in the schools after 18 months .

If Bukele had invented the Vai script as he claimed, why did he need protection for his schools? The answer is that he didn't invent the writing he just popularized the script.

The Vai script was taught in the Mande secret societies. This is why eventhough the script is well known, it is cloaked in an aura of secrecy.

This view is supported by the fact that when Thomas Edward Beslow, a Vai prince who attended mission schools in Liberia and the Wesleyan Academy in Massachusetts was initiated into the Poro Society he mentions in his autobiography that many members of the secret society could write in Vai[b] (see: T.E. Beslow, From Darkness of Africa to the light of America).[/b]

What do we learn from this report. First, the Vai script was known to Vai elites. Obviously, members of Poro would not like non members of the society to know about this writing. Yet, Bukele was teaching the Vai writing to any one who desired to learn it , so the Vai would be recognized for their literacy just like Europeans. Secondly it was being taught in the Poro society, which King Fa Toro, did not belong too.

Today eventhough the Vai script is well known the writing is semi-secret. As a result. some commentators believe the Vai no longer write in the script. This led Christopher Fyfe in A History of Sierra Leone, to write that: "Though an English trader who spent some time among the Vai in the 1860's found schools where children were still learning it, it was almost forgotten by the early twentieth century, and today is only studied by linguist".

Fyfe was wrong. Gail Stewart, only five years later in Notes on the present-day usage of the Vai script in Liberia [b](African Language Review 6,(1967)p.71)[/b] found that the script was still very popular among many Vai.

David Dalby wrote about a Gola student of William Siegman, who allowed Siegman him to copy the inscription but he would not translate same. This student attributed the writing to the Poro Society, and said he was taught the writing by his grandfather. Dalby wrote: "After the present paper had gone to press, Mr. William Siegman of Indiana University gave me information on a fifteenth West African script, used in Liberia for writing Gola. Mr. Siegman had seen a young Gola student at Cuttingham College (Liberia) writing a letter in this script in 1968, but although the student allowed him to take a copy of the letter he declined to provide Mr. Siegman with a Key"[b](see:D. Dalby, Further indigenous scripts in West Africa and etc.,ALS,10,pp.180-181).[/b]

Dalby viewed the assertion of the student that the writing was used by members of the Poro Society with skepticism. But Dalby should not have been skepticism because Beslow had made the same claim.

In conclusion, Bukele probably did not invent the Vai writing. This is supported by the fact that 1) the symbols associated with the Vai script were well known to members of the Poro Secret Society; 2) descendants of Maroon Blacks in Suriname were familiar with the script; and 3) the Vai writing, for the most part remains in use but it is maintained in a semi-secret fashion and not usually shared with people who are not members or kin of members of a secret society, this is why the Gola student would not translate his letter for Mr.Siegman.

Finally it must be remembered that the symbols engraved on rocks from the Fezzan to the Niger bend and other areas where the Mande live are identical to symbols associated with the Vai script. This shows the continuity of writing among the Mande speaking people over a period of 3000 plus years.

The evidence from Suriname, symbols on the rocks near Mande habitations, and the existence of the symbols relating to the Vai script in other Mande writing systems and their continued use by members of the Vai and members of secret societies support Delafosse's tradition that the Vai writing existed in ancient times.

This makes it clear that your statement that the script is only 200 years all is not truely discussion of all the evidence relating to a possible African influence on the Olmec writing. It is just a view you accept. All of the sources I provide in the revision of this section are related to the theme that the Olmec writing system is related to African writing systems.Clyde Winters (talk) 19:47, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

The age of vai writing is not the topic of this article. Any discussion of the dating of Vai writing should go in the article on The Vai Script NOT in the article on the Olmecs. It is simply not relevant to the article and you still have not provided any reliable sources that have come to the same conclusions about the vai scripts age as you have. If you have such sources they would be relevant to include in the Vai article but NOT HERE.·Maunus· ·ƛ· 20:08, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

By the way I am not going to revert the new, considerably shortened and improved version of your edit, which is acceptable for now. ·Maunus· ·ƛ· 20:11, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. The issue of reliable sources is mute, you can only use the available sources which appear in published books and articles. I may make a few changes to clean up the grammar within the piece, but it will remain basically the way it is. Also, I searched for the Vai article but it has been deleted.Clyde Winters (talk) 00:50, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Hello. I firmly believe that the Epigraphy section as it presently stands presents the basic points of the African-origins-of-Olmec-characters school of thought without long digressions or becoming a pulpit. It is short (4 sentences total, of which only 2 really present the position) and to-the-point. I also (reluctantly) agreed with Maunus on the Original Research guideline and the general guideline against self-reference and so removed Dr. Winters' name from that section. This should satisfy all parties (I hope!). Madman (talk) 02:07, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

It's okay with me, great job.Clyde Winters (talk) 05:43, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

It's okay with me too. Thanks Madman for solving the problem to everyones satisfaction. And Mr. Winters the article on the VAi script can be found here: Vai script ·Maunus· ·ƛ· 08:40, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the information.Clyde Winters (talk) 14:56, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] a caution to regular editors

Just quickly reading the article, it has a texture or tone of original research promotion of these theories. Not a big deal, and there do seem to be quite a number of references used throughout. Maybe there would be some value in folks double checking that the refs are a) reliable sources and b) are used with as little interpretation as possible. It's an interesting set of fringe theories that should be included, but as with all fringe theories care must be taken with sources. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 16:36, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] This article should not attempt to prove that Olmecs were indigenous

The scope of this article is to dispassionately describe the Olmec alternative origin theories/speculations that have been advanced. The scope is not to prove matters one way or another or even to fully discuss the origins of the Olmec.

The reason that Olmec art is included in the article is not to argue one way or another, but rather to show the artwork that has drawn the attention of the alternative-origin school (as well as to enliven the long blocks of often-boring prose). Certainly, it improves this or any article if we can show artwork while we discuss it.

The point of this article is definitely not to prove or argue for the indigenous origin of the Olmec. Goodness knows we could fill whole books on the matter and we do have many articles that make this point largely by default. So, that is why I reverted that image purporting to show indigenous features on that jade head -- it is off-topic. It really does not elucidate or explicate the alternative origin theories, the subject of this article.

Thanks, Madman (talk) 02:42, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

So where exactly are you supposed to post studies that directly refute these hypediffusionist studies, as you give a platform for their off the wall claims. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Salsassin (talk • contribs) 11:44, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

I think they should go in the criticism section which needs big expansion in my opinion.·Maunus· ·ƛ· 12:13, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, studies that "directly refute" (to use your words, Salsassin) belong in the article. However, a jade bust with non-African features doesn't refute or demonstrate anything.

And remember that the focus of this article is the "alternative origin speculations" and not "Theories of Olmec origins". You are welcome to write the latter article, but this is not it. Thanks,Madman (talk)

13:34, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

I am not sure what you mean by important. That there were African soldiers and sailors I am sure about. There was an African sailor with Columbus on his first expedition, Juan las Canarias. Obviously it's hard sorting out truth from myth, and you know what I think about people like van Sertima and Winters. But see for instance: A History of Native American and African Relations from 1502 to 1900 Latin America and the Conquistadors African Explorers of Spanish America Then of course there would be Moors, some of whom would be considered Black. Then there must have been people and even voyages for which we have no record -- I suspect even where we do have records they don't cover that much detail of who was pure Spanish, who freed slave, etc. So yes, I'm sure about black soldiers and sailors although not about their numbers. I don't blame you for checking though!--Dougweller (talk) 08:34, 4 February 2008 (UTC) I've added an external link to an article that deals with the nonsense put forward by Winters, etc. Does the Viewzone external link meet Wikipedia standards?--Dougweller (talk) 14:20, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, in particular since it does not provide advertising and is not literally selling anything. Thanks, Madman (talk) 14:32, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

So absolutely any site that isn't advertising or selling can be an external link? Blogs for instance? That doesn't sound right.--Dougweller (talk) 17:04, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, my statement referred to that particular site you added and was not intended to state that any site without advertising would be OK as an "External link". See Wikipedia:External links for a comprehensive guidelines on the matter.

On another matter, you keep adding that Africans were brought to America as soldiers as well as slaves. I am unaware that African soldiers were an important component of the African diaspora to Mesoamerica and so I have reverted your adds. I would be happy to discuss. Thanks, Madman (talk) 21:54, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

There were free men of African descent among the first conquistadors - see. e.g. Restalls "seven myths"·Maunus· ·ƛ· 08:54, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

I've just checked the criteria for external links, and they say to avoid "Links to blogs and personal web pages, except those written by a recognized authority." Viewzone is a personal webpage, so? I was told I couldn't link to a Geologist's blog, so why is Viewzone ok?--Dougweller (talk) 18:53, 8 February 2008 (UTC)