Talk:Olmec alternative origin speculations/Archive 1

message: Note on discussions transferred here from original talk pageThe first 15 discussion sections were originally posted to the Talk:Olmec page.  Since they pertained to one or more of the alternative origin speculations, I moved them over to this new article today.  FYI, Madman 21:47, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

message: There seems to be alot of evidence that the olmecs may have come from West Africa, - it isnt just the similarities with the colossal heads. Its also the language - I think the Olmec language has been proven to be similar to the languages of West Africa   "The Olmec Writing is Unique. The Signs are similar to the writing used by the Vai people of West Africa. The Olmecs spoke and aspect of the Manding (Malinke-Bambara) language spoken in West Africa."  Astrokey44 12:52, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: What "Olmec language"? We have no writing from them, only a few signs. AFAIK, there are no significant similarities between West African and surviving Native American languages. Paul B 13:02, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I thought they did have writing & it seems they deciphered Mayan writing (which developed from Olmec) using similarities with ancient N. African writing.  There seems to be heaps of results showing an african link on google  Maybe not other native american languages, possibly it only influenced the Olmecs Astrokey44 13:09, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  There are some Olmec texts, but most are short (such as calendric dates, or single glyphs thought to give the identiy of the deity depicted). The few longer pre-classic texts are still poorly understood, but are related to-- but not the same as-- the currently much better understood Maya writings.  The West African origin or connection of the Olmec has long been promoted vehemently by a group of fringe writers, but I know of no archaeologists or serious Mesoamericanists who say there is any actual evidence for it. (For example the African Mande artifacts a certain writer likes to point to are actually centuries later than the Olmec, and no serious scholars have yet found evidence of the supposed connection.) Cheers, -- Infrogmation 15:09, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

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

text: Indeed. The sole "evidence" for claims of African origins seem to be based upon a superficial resemblance of the heads to negroid features, thickened lips and all. I find it surprising that dedicated Afrocentrists would want to rely upon such stereotypical material. When von Daniken looked at the selfsame statues, they "obviously" were wearing space helmets, complete with microphone, thus "proving" they were extra-terrestrials.--cjllw | TALK 23:37, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: What about this sentence which appears on many sites: Over a decade ago Winters (1979, 1997) deciphered the Olmec writing and discovered that you could read the Olmec inscriptions using the sound value of the Vai signs. Are you saying that they didn't decipher the language? It seems to me that they deciphered the Olmec and Mayan languages, and are trying to sweep under the rug the fact that they used African languages to do it. I'm not 'afrocentric' at all, Ive just seen this same information in quite alot of sites, it seems to be more than just 'fringe'. And for serious scholarly publications, what about Rafinesque in 1832 who "published an important paper on the Mayan writing that helped in the decipherment of the Olmec Writing". "Leo Wiener (1922, v.3), was the first researcher to recognize the resemblance's between the Manding writing and the symbols on the Tuxtla statuette. In addition, Harold Lawrence (1962) noted that the "petroglyphic" inscriptions found throughout much of the southern hemisphere compared identically with the writing system of the Manding."  and also "Paper presented at the 1997 Central States Anthropological Society Meeting, treating Olmec as a West African language." I also found a page once which showed the correlation with the symbols, cant seem to find it now. This one does it though not as well:  ---- Astrokey44 00:00, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

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

message: Oh come on now. Most people here would agree that the Moron's claim are a bit strecthed, yet they still get mentioned despite having no proof.  I'm not claiming that the Olmecs are definitively black or west african but there is enough evidence to at least suggest it as a possibility.  Linguistics is one of them as well as physical appearance.  The Olmecs certainly look more African than say Mayans, Aztecs, or most other native americans.  There are countless books and websites that support claims that either the Olmecs were from West Africa or at least came into enough contact with NorthWestern Africans to speak a similiar language and make similiar looking statues.  I don't know if everthing claimed in all these websites and books is true but I do know that they all seem to have consistent claims of a Zingh empire that came across the Atlantic and made contact with Olmecs and spoke similiar language.  Some books actually explained that cotton which was native to africa was in the region of where the Olmecs were and no where else in America.  Strange coincidence? I don't know but worth mentioning.  There is also the Mende language and 'inferior' pyramid builing.  Both West Africa and the Olmec had the same language and so called 'inferior' pyramid building.  They were no Egyptian or Nubian pyramids but it is something unique to the two cultures.
Also:
The Washitaw Nation of Louisiana is one such group, the Garifuna or Black Caribs of the Caribbean and Central America is another, the descendants of the Jamasse who live in Georgia and the surrounding states is another group. There are also others such as the Black Californian of Queen Calafia fame (the Black Amazon Queen mentioned in the book Journey to Esplandian, by Ordonez de Montalvo during the mid 1500's).
The Olmecs used an African practice that is very common in Africa. That practice is body scarification and specifically facial scarification as practiced in West Africa. Many of the facial scars seen on the Olmec terracotta faces, such as "dot" keloids and "lined" patterns are identical to Africans such as the Dinka of Sudan and the Yoruba and others of West Africa. (Dinka scarification can be found in old copies of National Geographic. Olmec scarification can be found in the text by "Alexander Von Wuthenau, Unexpected Faces in Ancient America."
African hairstyles such as cornroes are found on many of the Olmec terracotta found in Mexico. Both kinky hair carved into one of the collosal stone heads of basalt, as well as the cornroed style wearing tassels (see African Presence in Early America, by Ivan Van Sertima; Transaction Publisher)
The Olmecs practiced a religion and astronomical sciences identical to those practiced by Africans in the Mali region and Nigeria today. The Olmecs studied the Venus Complex in astronomy. Today, the Ono and Bambara who are famous sea and river travelers have studied that same complex for thousands of years. In fact, another group the Dogon are well known for their tracking and mapping of the Sirius star system and their accurate results.
The Olmecs also had a religious practice of Thunder worship where the ax was a prominent feature. In West Africa, the ax is also a prominent feature in connection with the Shango or Thunder God worship. Both the Olmecs and the Shango worshippers in West Africa placed an emphasis on the religious significance of children in their religious practices.  Also both groups coincidentally call the thunder gd shango
Astronomers did a study that said there is no way that the Olmecs could have seen some of the stars their calendar was based on which proves they must have foreign contact with people from either South West Europe,West/north Africa, or mid-east because those were the only places that all of the stars could be seen at once.
Studies done by researchers such as Ivan Van Sertima (They Came Before Columbus), Alexander Von Wuthenau (Unexpected Faces in Ancient America), Runoko Rashidi and others have presented evidence that clearly show that the Olmecs were not Indians with "baby faces," or Indians who looked like Blacks (although a few Olmecs did mix with the Native Americans). They were Africans no different from Africans found in the Mende regions of West Africa. 
This is enough evidence to at least have a mention in the Olmec article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Adallasas (talk • contribs) 15 December 2005
:I think they are called Mormons, not Morons. There is no "linguistic evidence" or biological evidence. The rest of this is just speculation. Scarification is practiced by Polynesians, does that make them African in origin (or the Olmecs Polynesians). Thor is a god of thunder, and axes are significant in Norse culture. Does that mean that ancient Nordic peoples came from west Africa? Anyway, the Afrocentrist claims are mentioned in the article. Paul B 11:38, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: From my ugly "eurocentric" POV I ask you to provide sources that prove that African cultures were able to cross the Atlantic, before entertaining the idea that any cultural exchange was going on.  For instance, there is evidence that the polynesians may have been able to cross the Pacific. Also there is a notable absence of any unique Olmec cultural features in African cultures: where are the giant heads, jaguars or feathered serpents, just to name a few? -- Rune Welsh | ταλκ | Esperanza 13:02, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

text: So I am "eurocentric" because I say that the Olmecs were native Americans? Doesn't that seem a bit of an eccentric use of language? I suggest you look at fewer websites and more books. AFAIK, the linguistic evidence does not suggest W. African links it suggests American links. Paul B 22:59, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Jmac800, as Paul notes there is no "linguistic evidence"- it is not even well established what language(s) were spoken in the Tabasco region at the time of the Olmec (such evidence as there is points to Mixe-Zoque), let alone that there is a relationship between those and African languages. A bunch of webpages pulled up in a google search does not a case make- just like in wikipedia, you need to consider just how reliable or otherwise these "sources" are before wanting to rely on them. Quite frankly, there's an awful lot of rot circulating, and the random associations, distortions, outright errors (no-one has a clue what the Olmec themselves actually called their deities, for eg) in these sites (and in Adallasas's post above) actually belittle the significant achievements of African and Mesoamerican cultures alike. I can't argue that these "Olmecs came from Africa" views are so obscure as to be not notable; however, they do need to be presented for what they are, together with the account on how actual scholarship views them. In fact, if you wanted there are actually several "traditional" scholars, such as Heine-Geldern, who have in the past entertained hypotheses on external connections and who could be quoted (along with their rebuttals).--cjllw | TALK 00:07, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

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

message: I wonder whether the African stuff should be put in a separate section, or merged with the Mormon stuff in a section called "alternative views" or something like that. At the moment the Afrocentric stuff is rather buried in the "collossal heads" section. At least if its in the open, as it were, it can be placed alongside the Jaredites, since there is an overlap between the two models - what with the Jaredites being deemed "Hamitic" and all. Paul B 19:47, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: At best, any of the fringe theories including Mormon speculation and Afrocentrist claims (if they are to be mentioned at all) should be placed in a separate section towards the end. Mixing this stuff up with what is evidentially-based and generally accepted by scholarship is just confusing the matter. As things stand, overall this is rather a confused and very incomplete article, and in need of a significant rewrite and addition of citeable sources. Such "alternative" views also clearly need to be marked as such.--cjllw | TALK 23:26, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed. Currently we have the "mormon speculation" section at the end of the article. We could just rename it to "speculation" and write each claim with its rebuttal. -- Rune Welsh | ταλκ | Esperanza 13:03, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

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

text: Oh come on now.  You are obviously ignoring evidence that the Olmecs were descended from Captain Jean-Luc Picard.  Compare Picard's photo with this figurine.  If this doesn't give you a clue, I don't know what else could.  Everyone knows that the Enterprise visited Earth's past many time, and that the Captain was quite the ladies' man.  I think it is harder to prove that they weren't, rather than were, Captain Picard's progeny.  Madman 17:21, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps you would find support for your groundbreaking theory here Talk:Kennewick Man#The resemblance to Patrick Stewart Paul B 11:01, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: African stuff

message: This section has been called "Alternative speculations" because it is about non-mainstream material. If we were genuinely to discuss the theories of the origins of the Olmec people, then we will also have to explore in this section all the mainstream material on the population history of the Americas. That would be rather out of place here unless we had good reason to think that the Olmec, specifically, were a racially distinct "people", who had a population history that marks them out from other cultures. I know of no evidence that this is the case. There is no distinctive physical anthropolgy of "Olmec" skeletons. 
It is certainly true that ancient skeltons have been found that are said to be "Australoid", and that this has led to speculation that Australoid people were early migrants to the Americas, but as far as I know these skeletal remains are not associated with the Olmec at all. There's nothing wrong with this concept, of course, though it depends on accepting the category of "Australoid" as an unchanging racial identity that links modern and ancient peoples. That's certainly very questionable. All that can be said is that there are some what are termed "paleoamerican" skulls, found in Brazil and elsewhere, that have a morphology similar to modern Australoids and may represent an extinct lineage that was supplanted or absorbed by later migrants. This was thousands of years before the rise of Olmec culture, has no specific connection to it, and also has no specific connection to "African" (or "Negroid" or "Africoid") identity. Australooids, Paleoamericans and Europeans are all as much or as little "African" as eachother in this respect. Paul B 13:32, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: "Origins"/"Alternative speculations"