Talk:Olmecs/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Olmec black history

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

Reference to the "out of Africa" theory is made in the Alternative origin speculations section in this article and in a separate article entitled Olmec alternative origin speculations. You are welcome to add referenced information to that article. Unreferenced material will be deleted. Thanks, Madman 22:41, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

"Even though many whites oppose this idea..." What kind of crap is this? Which "whites" oppose the idea? And who do you define as "white" anyway? Listen, whoever you are, in future keep your stupid racist comments to yourself. --Jquarry 03:05, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

I am not white and i oposse that idea

Mexxxicano 16:00, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

The Olmecs weren't Black Africans; they were Australoid (the same race as the Australian Aborigines and Melanesians. Arnie Gov 11:26, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

The willful ignorance is amazingly palpable! The neo-liberal academic establishment and its relentless and wilfuly blind disciples have made an art out of denial. They will one day convince Africans of their non-Africaness and finally admit any shred of dignity that these people are entitled to, and turn around and tell them...'see, nothing good came out of Africa, and you're not African.' Mr. Wright, your desire to blatantly lie to yourself frightens me. Humans of your ability are capable of the most evil. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.20.195.252 (talk) 08:27, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, anonymous critic —or is that Tom again? Either way, I'm always more than happy for my comments here to be scrutinised by others and stand behind what they contain. That's why I sign my name to my posts; it's a pity that for whatever reason you seem not to have the same confidence to do likewise, so that an independent person might properly be able to assess where the true expression of self-deception lies.

Anyone is free to search through all my contributions here for comments that could vaguely be interpreted as racist, or that are disparaging of Africans and their achievements — and they will find none. Anonymous carping from the sidelines containing no actual argument or examinable piece of evidence in support contributes nothing, and means nothing, no matter how many loaded terms and empty buzzwords are squeezed into the sentence.

This strident repetition of ad hominems truly seems nothing more than a smokescreen, intended to mask a complete absence of any sense-making, logical or empirically sound arguments to advance. For, if you had them, why are they not being employed?

Or for that matter, why do you not turn your attention to documenting the authentic and actual achievements of African peoples, of which there are a great many and which are lamentably under-recorded in wikipedia to date? That would be far more constructive than this blind-alley pursuit.--cjllw ʘ TALK 02:22, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

If my unanimity is such a downer on my argument, here I am. You smoked me out, you brave you! Bush would be mighty proud of you! My anonymous comments were a result of simply being not logged in, not something insidious as you assert. You're still willfuly ignorant at best, and virulently racist at worst. Although correct that there is not as much documentation of the African's past, there is enough to trump your ignorance, thus my assertion of your willful ignorance. Start with Bernal's Black Athena series. The neo-liberal academic establishment has so far refused to acknowledge (in forms of peer reviews) these works, and as such they are considered illegitimate among the believers. That's what I call, having your cake and eating it too. Furthermore, the neo-liberal academic establishment bestows the title of The Father of History on Herodotus, and call him a liar in the same breath about anything he had to say about the African, because it contradicts the inherent superiority of the Aryan. Voluminous documentation is not evidence of one's truth. So, don't piss on our collective feet and tell us it is raining. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Peelinglayers (talk • contribs) 20:32, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

B-class

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

I do think that this article could be rated A or Good Article -- it might be Featured with a bit of clean-up -- but no one has bothered to take it thru the process. Madman (talk) 02:30, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

I think it could be GA with a quite small effort. Why not nominate it?·Maunus· ·ƛ· 08:46, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Returned to post to this item after a long absence: Well, Maunus and I tried to put it thru the GA process but ended up with a lot of heat and what I considered to be unreasonable demands (including asking "when were the radiocarbon dates taken, by whom were they taken, which laboratory processed them, and which calibration they used". I spent considerable effort on the process and the article is only marginally better. I fear that there are better uses of my time. Madman (talk) 16:06, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Blatant Spam in "Overview" Section

When did the following get added to the Article?

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

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

Gone now. It was a school site registered to the State of Illinois, I expect it to be blocked for a while.--Doug Weller (talk) 19:03, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

72 hour block. The problem is presumably there are good editors there as well! --Doug Weller (talk) 19:24, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Further Debate on the African Migration Theory

I reverted Godheval's change as it sounds like wp:or. If there's a source which supports this feel free to reinsert this, but the paragraph seems to be talking about modern (in the 1940s) Indians. I assume the paragraph was referring large Indian populations in the south. In the north, there are more instances of African genes mixed into the population. NJGW (talk) 15:21, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

No, it is not original research, it is common sense. At the time of the Olmec, Europeans had yet to introduce enslaved Africans to the Americas. So any appearance of "Africanesque" features on the continent would not be related to this, and must therefore rely on another possibility, such as Africans of some sort making the journey on their own before that. The argument against THAT possibility, as in the article, is that MODERN Amerindians have Africanesque features, under the assumption that they've always had them. But the counter to that is that modern incarnations of African features could have come from the introduction of enslaved Africans to the continent in the 15th and 16th centuries. Therefore, just modern people in the area having African features is in no way a case against African migration in the distant past. It's plainly a weak argument. I'm putting the comments back in.Godheval (talk) 18:46, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

You misunderstand my main point: if you don't have a reliable source that you are getting your information from and citing in the article, then you are inserting OR. There are sources which claim that Africans migrated to the Americas long ago, but unless you find sources which discuss this along with the Olmec heads, you are synthesizing the information (which is also not allowed). We have to be careful in what we place in the articles, otherwise anybody could start putting all sorts of opinions in the text. NJGW (talk) 18:43, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

And you just completely fail to acknowledge what it is that I'm saying. I AM NOT THE ONE to have put the bit about African Migration theory into the article. It was put in some time ago and has been accepted, as it is well-known idea and argument in the field. My addition was ONLY to point out the flaw in one argument against the African Migration theory. Please try to keep up. Godheval (talk) 19:04, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

We're not talking about the "bit about African Migraion theory." We're talking about your "pointing out the flaw in one argument". That is all I removed and that is OR until you find a source that states that. NJGW (talk) 19:10, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Please address this issue. "Material that should be removed without discussion includes ... clear examples of original research ..." Cite a source within the hour or remove it. NJGW (talk) 19:39, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

While it is true that the Bering Strait Migration Theory is "mainstream", it is not the only theory, and does not explain all the features of all the populations in the Americas. My change to the article was not introducing original research, but was referring to theories already mention IN the article. My addition was merely to demonstrate the flaw in one argument against the African migration theory already mentioned. Before you revert, discuss it here. You are no authority, and are bound by the same rules as the rest of us. Godheval (talk) 18:54, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

I have restored "mainstream" per your statement above. NJGW (talk) 18:56, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

What is mainstream? People who think one thing and publish a book about it? Or people who others just happen to notice? The way it is worded now makes it sound like all credible Mesoamerican researchers disregard all other theories of migration to the area. This is simply not true. The Bering Strait Migration theory is not necessarily at odds with other theories. If it were true that all credible researchers disregarded other theories, then you would have to cite an awful lot of people - which is why I put the "who" tag on it. So you can either keep that, or it can be changed to "some Mesoamerican researchers". You decide. For now I'm going to change it to "some". Godheval (talk) 19:04, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

You can't have it both ways. You say that is the mainstream view, but you don't want the article to say this. Your version is a distortion of the academic consensus. Regardless of what you or I think the Truth might be (something I don't claim to know anyway), Wikipedia does not attempt to find the Truth. Wikipedia only reports what academic consensus states. That's the role of an encyclopedia. NJGW (talk) 19:17, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

You make zero sense. PAY ATTENTION. It is you who seems to want it both ways. If you are going to use the term "mainstream", then you need to have MULTIPLE, if not MANY citations to back up that claim. That is why I used the "who?" tag at first. But rather than do that, I put "some researchers", leaving the burden of proving a "mainstream" consensus to anyone who wants to replace that term in the article. Godheval (talk) 19:19, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Note that there are ZERO citations for this alleged "mainstream consensus", yet there ARE citations - as of now - for the African origin theory. Godheval (talk) 19:20, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

"It is true that the Bering Strait Migration Theory is "mainstream."" Do you recall writing this? Citations are needed when a statement is doubted. You apparently don't doubt this statement, so a citation is not required. Also, please stop YELLING. NJGW (talk) 19:28, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

I also put "mainstream" in quotes to signal the dubiousness of the term. I also go on to say that the Bering Strait theory is not necessarily at odds with any theory of African migration. The two are not mutually exclusive. Bering Strait purports to explain indigenous New World populations. It does not preclude a separate African migration either before or (most likely) afterwards. I apologize for "yelling", but the constant RV'ing was pissing me off. And you say "citations are needed when a statement is doubted"? Uh...citations are needed when a statement is MADE, too, last I checked. Godheval (talk) 19:31, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Please check Wikipedia:When_to_cite#When_a_source_is_needed again then. Also, your links such as [1] are highly misleading. That article does not make any reference to the African migration hypothesis. Please revert it so I don't have to. NJGW (talk) 19:35, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

I did not link it because it mentions the African migration theory. I linked it because it refers to populations of mixed African and indigenous Mesoamerican descent. Look at the text that is linked and it starts to make sense. You know, verification of the intermixing? You really are kind of slow on the draw if I have to spell out every change I make for you.Godheval (talk) 19:41, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

This is an old debate, and no new argunments are presented. There is simply no way that this article is going to state anything to the effect that there were an precolumbian african presence - this belongs in the Alternative Origins Speculations article. Not in the serious article about what scholars believe about the Olmecs.·Maunus·ƛ· 19:38, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Regardless, the theories exist, and deserve mention - as they have been. This whole RV war between myself and NJGW has less to do with that, and more to do with his misunderstanding of why I added what I did. If the African migration theory is going to be mentioned, and then an argument against it is presented, a counter argument can also be made. It's that simple. Godheval (talk) 19:41, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

No it is not. The page is not to be constructed as an argument but as a description of what the scientific consensus about the issue is. The scientific consensus is that the precolumbian african presence theory is a dead horse - theres no need to keep flogging it in article space. Arguments and counter argument belong in the Olme Alternative Origins Speculations article. Its that simple.·Maunus·ƛ· 19:44, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

And yet nowhere in this article are there citations for what the "scientific consensus" even is. No one's flogging a dead horse. I am giving light to theories that exist and are as credible as any other. Godheval (talk) 19:45, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

The article is quite clear on what scientific consensus is.So please go give light elsewhere, there is lots of free publishing space. This is an encyclopedia, not a publisher of novel theories. ·Maunus·ƛ· 19:50, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

And I suppose an encyclopedia is the end-all on what is factual and what is theoretical? That even published encyclopedias only state facts and never theories? What world do you live in where that's true? There is nothing wrong with incorporating valid theories along with the facts. And if the scientific consensus on this particular issue is clearly stated in the article, I certainly cannot find it. Care to point it out for me? You are quite arrogant to think that you can just come in here and change other people's edits with no authority on the subject, especially when those others have provided back-up for their edits. Get over yourself, son. Godheval (talk) 19:57, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

There are specific rules about what wikipedia is and isn't you are violating about three of them. This article is a colaboration between many previous editors who all have expertise on the subject. We have discussed the african presence theory MANY times and the way it is presented is a result of a consensus of multiple editors - you are the arrogant one waltzing in and trying to revolutionize the view of a field about which obviously have little to no appreciation. Just like you apparently have little or no appreciation for Wkipedias rules or processes. The only thing you will achieve with this kind of agressive POV pushing is a block. My advice is that you read the old discussions VERY thoroughly- and if you have something new to add to those discussions which seems highly unlikely judging from what you have already added then you put it here on the discussion page and IF the consensus of editors agrees that it is important enough to be included then we include it. Not before.

I've read the discussions. It's funny how short your memory is, because if you think back, you'd recall us - I mean YOU and I personally - having an argument on this subject before. At the time I just gave up, because I didn't have sources, and didn't care enough to look into them. Imagine my pleasant surprise to find SOME mention of the African origin theory. However, following that bit was an apparent argument against the theory as supported by some random artist's work. My addition was merely to point out the flaw in that argument. Arrogant would've been to delete it altogether, since it is a completely spurious argument. Also, I added one needed citation to support the African origin theory. There is nothing out of order about my addition, and nothing contradictory to wikipedia guidelines, or to the consensus. Do try to read things carefully. Godheval (talk) 20:10, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

I am sorry if I hurt your feelings by not remembering its just that I can't really distinguish one POV pusher from the next one.If you find a published source that points out the flaw in the argument then you csn put it in Olmec Alternative Origins Speculations - not here. If you don't find a published source making this objection then it is indeed Original Research and a violation of policy. Consensus among the editors of this page up to now is that in this article we don't present arguments for or against the African Precolumbian Presence theory, but only what is the current academic consensus: namely that "They Were Not Here Before Columbus" - speculations and arguments go in the other article.·Maunus·ƛ· 20:16, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

You overestimate your importance. But anyway, see below for the answer to this. Godheval (talk) 20:35, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

• Saying that "mainstream Mesoamerican scholars now reject this view" is entirely correct. (For that matter I don't know that the word "now" is needed, as it seems to imply there was a time when the situation was otherwise.) Alternative explanations that have become well known in pop culture, even if widely or even universally rejected by scholars, merit mention in the article, but it is dishonest to try to twist wording to suggest that there are only "some" who do not accept them. -- Infrogmation (talk) 20:20, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

I patiently await the source for "It should be noted that this view seems to discount the introduction of enslaved Africans to the Americas by European conquerors. Such would explain modern manifestations of African features in all New World populations, as the transplants intermixed with the native populations, but fails to explain the existence of those same features in the distant past. This discrepancy allows the African migration theory to retain credence." NJGW (talk) 20:24, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

I explained this already. A few times, even. Much like it is taken for granted that the "consensus" goes against the African Origin theory, the "consensus" also states that there was such a thing as the Trans-Atlantic slave trade, and that there were instances of intermixing between those transplanted peoples and the native populations. Therefore, to say that the manifestation of African features in modern populations somehow debunks the idea of the African Origin theory of the Olmecs is completely spurious. Are you really not understanding this? Godheval (talk) 20:30, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Source or go home. NJGW (talk) 20:35, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes, sources please. And make them exceptionally good. Anyway the "indians do/don't look african argument" isn't even supposed to be in this article. It is suppoed to be in the other one. The only thing this article is supposed to say is that the theory is rejected by the scientific community and that no precolumbian african presence has ever been documented in the americas. I don't know where the covarrubias argument which was grantedly weak (since there are so many so much better arguments against it) even came from it wasn't supposed to be there in the first place. ·Maunus·ƛ· 20:39, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Then delete the argument supported by Miguel Corrubias or whatever tf his name is, and then I have nothing to argue against. I do not NEED a source for the fact that the Trans-Atlantic slave trade occurred, nor do I need a source for the fact that many of those enslaved Africans intermingled with native populations. These things are established historical facts. The SOURCES are in the text itself - which point to the slave trade article and an article on people who are evidence of the aforementioned intermingling. The SOURCES are also in the MAINSTREAM historical record. That being the case, following plain logic, the argument that MODERN manifestations of African features disproves ANY theory of ancient manifestations is completely fallacious. So either remove it, or allow it to be acknowledged that the argument is spurious. Godheval (talk) 20:44, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Source that makes the same statement you do in it's entirety or go home. I'm sure we can find better arguments than Covarrubias' but that's so far besides the point that I'm yawning. NJGW (talk) 20:48, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Civility works both ways. I just asked Godheval to tone things down at your request, don't you start too. May I suggest to everyone that perhaps dropping this for now, and restarting the discussion in the morning after a nice cup of tea, might be best for all involved? The article will still be here in the morning. --barneca (talk) 20:51, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Hm, I didn't realize that wikipedia was composed entirely of verbatim quotes from sources. I always thought that people put things in their own words and then supported them with evidence. You know why I thought that? Because that's what people do. That's also what I did. There is no mental leap required to understand or accept my statements. My statements are a logical procession from the historical record. Let me put it simply for you. Argument: Olmec heads having so-called African features + Modern Mesoamericans having African features = Mesoamericans have always had African features. Flaw 1: Some modern Mesoamericans ARE of African descent, which would explain their features. There is no necessary correlation between their features and any theory on Olmec origin. Who's to even say that they are RELATED to the Olmecs at all? Why is this hard to understand? My next move is to just remove the argument, since it is so obviously flawed, rather than to muddle up the article with a counter-argument. Godheval (talk) 20:58, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

(undent)I'm not here to judge the cited content. I first got to this article following a vandal and kept it watched because it seemed no other eyes were regular visitors. You came in and inserted what appeared to be OR, I asked for a source, you refused to give one. Now we are still waiting for a source. If there are issues with the article's content, I'll let folks more versed with the sources sort it out. This does not give you free license to include your evaluations of the facts. NJGW (talk) 21:04, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

I would support the removale of the argument although for different reasons.·Maunus·ƛ· 21:10, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm not "evaluating" any facts. First of all, there are virtually no facts when it comes to the Olmec, just varying theories, with a consensus being based on the views of a sizable majority. That consensus does NOT argue against the African origin theory by saying something idiotic like "Modern manifestations of African features in Mesoamerican populations proves that they've always had these features". I'm not even arguing for or against the theory, but against the sheer idiocy of the argument supported by that one artist. Godheval (talk) 21:12, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

This is getting very silly. You can't include your personal speculations for reasons that have already been explained. However, your arguments are irrelevant. There re many isolated tribes that have had abolutely no contact with African immigrants, and which have been photographed for over a century. These features are to be found in them. Features such as wide noses are an evolutionary adaptation determined by climate. Paul B (talk) 21:19, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Great! I accept what you say, but the argument in place does NOT mention these facts. My only contention was with the argument that African features in modern Mesoamericans somehow debunks the African Origin theory. It's not so much support for the AOT as it is pointing out how silly that argument is. So if we remove the completely asinine argument, then I'll have nothing to say. Good day! Godheval (talk) 21:38, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm just going to leave it as this: I think the African migration debate deserves a mention here (with a link to models of migration to the New World and a statement making clear that this is not a mainstream hypothesis), and some rebuttal wouldn't hurt. A rebuttal to the rebuttal would violate wp:undue however, as well as the MOS which states debates are not to be given in a back and forth manner. NJGW (talk) 21:45, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Proposed edit: The flat-faced, thick-lipped characteristics of the heads have caused some to suggest a resemblance to African facial characteristics. Based on this comparison, Wiercinski argued in 1972 that the Olmecs were Africans who had emigrated to the New World. However, this hypothesis is not among mainstream models of migration to Mesoamerica, and scholars offer other possible explanations for the facial features of the colossal heads, for example, that the heads were carved in this manner due to the shallow space allowed on the basalt boulders. Others note that Olmec art has no relation to African art.

I was under the impression that the pre-Columbian African presence was considered a fringe theory and that fring theories do not belong in a general article. Kman543210 (talk) 00:18, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't think the present wording needs fixing or expansion. It explicitly mentions the Africa theory, among others. The African and Chinese and other origin speculations are covered in detail at Olmec Alternative Origin Speculations, to which the reader can jump. As stated by Kman above, "pre-Columbian African presence" is a fringe theory and does not belong in a general article per WP:FRINGE and WP:UNDUE. If anyone feels coverage is lacking, they are welcome, and encouraged, to add sourced material discussing "pre-Columbian African presence" at Olmec Alternative Origin Speculations. Thanks, Madman (talk) 04:05, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

weight estimate correction

I have added a higher weight estimate based on the volume and the density of the Rancho Cobata. Volcanic Basalt is a vey low density stone but not as light as the existing estimate. I have also added distances that they were transported based on the "Seventy Wonders of the Ancient World" edited by Chris Scarre 1999. This book estimated the stones upto 50 tonnes but I assume he didn't know how low the density of volcanic basalt is. The following site provided the density of basalt: http://www.osti.gov/energycitations/product.biblio.jsp?osti_id=5461391 "samples over a density range of 1.45 to 2.03 g/cm" I translated that into 1.9 tons per cubic meter. Feel free to check it. Zacherystaylor (talk) 08:37, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

According to a rule of Wikipedia, we really shouldn't be running our own calculations, particularly something with as much room for error as a colossal head. I mean, how in the world do we estimate its volume -- is it a cube or a sphere?? Sorry, Madman (talk) 13:12, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

I have seen at least 4 or 5 different estimates for these heads which is why I checked the math. As I said I could cite the "Seventy Wonders of the Ancient World" edited by Chris Scarre 1999. They estimate it at over 50 tons. It is possible that it is a high density Basalt. The 20 ton estimate is clearly low. Would it be OK to cite both sources and provide a range? Thanks Zacherystaylor (talk) 06:45, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Why, yes, citing two sources would be perfectly fine. It's something I do a lot, particularly since there is often disagreement even among experts. Two estimates can give our readers a nice range and let them also know that there is no one "answer".

On the other hand, I'm not sure that it makes much difference to our readers whether the weight is 20 tons or 50 tons. To me, both those numbers fall within the "too large to imagine" category.  :) Thanks for your work, Madman (talk) 17:05, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

I have looked at that source and the way it was worded again. It actualy said aproaching 50 tons not over and it discussed Basalt as well as a few other things. I'll try it again with a closer watch on the details. Experiments have sucessfuly moved at least 10 tons and at least shift larger stones. If you think that is to large to imagine take a look at Baalbek. I checked the math on that as well and disputed it in the other direction. That has almost certainly been exagerated. When there is a simple math mistake is there a source that you know of that would fact check it if I find additional mistakes. Or I should say when since there are many that I have seen already. Including many much easier to calculate than the Olmec heads.

Thanks Zacherystaylor (talk) 05:44, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

As far as reliable sources for weight estimations go, I would think that INAH could be regarded as authorative. Not least, because they have practical experience in actually shifting the things about the archaeological sites and onto plinths etc for display in the site museums ... ;-)

The 17 colossal heads vary considerably in size—from abt 1.5 to 3.5 m tall—and hence weight. For eg, the one most recently found (in 1994) came in at 1.8m tall, and 8 tonnes.[2]. INAH gives the smallest as weighing abt 6t, up to the largest at abt 50t.[3] Hence it would be entirely appte to give a range, since they do in fact vary. Or to put it another way, need to be mindful that there are two reasons for any variance in weight figures - one because the masses of the monuments actually varies by up to an order of magnitude, and two because different sources may use different methods to obtain the weight for any given piece. --cjllw ʘ TALK 01:29, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks that agrees with the source I cited. a Spanish reference might be helpful to some but er I'm to lazy to learn new languages. Seventy wonders included one that was 4.8 tonnes but the highest one was also 50 tonnes. Zacherystaylor (talk) 05:54, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Zacherystaylor, when you add a citation to an existing article, please use the same format as the rest of the article. In this case, you stuck the name of the book in the citation itself, whereas the article was using shortened notes, where the citation just refers to the author and the page number (we could also use the page number on your recent adds). Nothing major, but it helps keep Wikipedia looking good, Madman (talk) 04:04, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Added page # and looked at changes you made will copy in future. thanks. Zacherystaylor (talk) 06:58, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Removed genetic study ref

I removed the following reference to a paper on a HLA gene study, published in Tissue Antigens journal:

• Arnaiz-Villena A, Vargas-Alarcon G, Granados J, Gomez-Casado E, Longas J, Gonzales-Hevilla M, Zuniga J, Salgado N, Hernandez-Pacheco G, Guillen J, Martinez-Laso J.; HLA genes in Mexican Mazatecans, the peopling of the Americas and the uniqueness of Amerindians. - Bibliographic entry in PubMed.

Firstly, because it does not seem to be used anywhere. Secondly, going only by the abstract on PubMed, I don't think it can be reliably used to demonstrate anything substantial about the preclassic Olmec. AFAIK the paper's authors are Spanish immunologists and geneticists, not Mesoamerican scholars. The paper seems to presume that the modern Mazatec are Olmec descendants, which while an option is certainly not something Mesoamericanists would be confident of. Or to put it another way, while the study may have something to say about modern indigenous populations, equating "Mazatec" with "Olmec" is not something I've seen well supported in Mesoamericanist literature. One of the paper's main conclusions, namely: "An indirect evidence of Olmec and Mayan relatedness is suggested, further supporting the notion that Olmecs may have been the precursors of Mayans", is an inference that would need qualifications and runs counter to the archaeological evidence.

Maybe if the reference was to be used somewhere, or the full paper obtained, then we could look at rationale for including it. It would be interesting also to see if the paper had been commented upon by any archaeologist, ethnohistorian or linguist.--cjllw ʘ TALK 07:04, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Notes on recent {{fact}} additions

Wandalstouring, I note your recent addition of 46 (count 'em) {{fact}} tags. I will be looking thru them over the next couple of days. Many of them are fair questions. Some of the ones that appear directly after an existing citation are puzzling but will be thoroughly reviewed.

Some however seem to be a bit outside the scope of this Wikipedia overview article (vs., say, a doctoral thesis). For example:

• "Please provide in a note complete argumentation why there were rulers (no republic?) full-time priests and shamans (and please tell what's the difference between a priest and a shaman)."
• "Use a note to provide the argumentation for the centralization theory. Could have other reasons regarding only architecture and sculpture."
• "Are there more scholars supporting this view? How do you know about the political mechanism from architecture and art? Please provide argumentation"

• "Please provide arguments why this [ slash and burn agriculture ] was practised."
• "When were these [radiocarbon] dates taken, by whom were they taken, which laboratory processed them and which calibration did they use? "

At 62 Kb, this article is pretty full up and many of these requests for argumentation would either be more appropriate for a sub-article or, in some cases, would be classified as original research. These overview articles are an attempt to incorporate and inter-relate facts from various sources to paint a broad picture of the subject matter (in this case, of course, the Olmec civilization). In the cases cited above, I believe is it best to provide the facts along with a proper citation and not discuss, for example, the radiocarbon calibration methodology or how archaeologists measure centralization. These are topics for other specialized articles.

Thanks, Madman (talk) 12:04, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

I just completed a review of some of the {{fact}} labels. I provided many citations. I also wanted to comment on the following:

• <ref>Pool, pp. 26-27, provides a great overview of this theory, and says: "The generation of food surpluses is necessary for the development of social and political hierarchies and there is no doubt that high agricultural productivity, combined with the natural abundance of aquatic foods in the Gulf lowlands suppported their growth".</ref> {{fact}} <!--Is this theory widely accepted for any ancient civilization or should it be pointed out that it is the opinion of one archaeologist?-->"

I want to stay on topic here and not get involved in a discussion of theories of complex society formation. Pool is eminent and his comments are right on target so let's leave it at that.

• "Much Olmec art is highly stylized and uses an iconography reflective of a religious meaning." !--who says that and what are the arguments?--!

Citation provided. Again, I don't think it would benefit us to try to determine why Coe and others believe this. This would be a topic for another article.

• [Referring to Long Count calendar dates and various stelae with these dates.]  !--Who has published this artifact and says that this symbol is on it and has this meaning.--

The early stelae containing Long Count dates are completely non-controversial. This is not the article to discuss how archaeologists determined that the shell glyph was zero or how to read Long Count dates. The wikilinks can lead the reader to articles that more fully explain this.

• "It has been estimated that moving a colossal head required the efforts of 1,500 people for three to four months.<ref>Pool, p. 103.</ref>" {{fact}} <!--nice theory. How many supporters does it have? if it's only Pool, say so in the article otherwise provide refs to other sources using this idea.-->

It's not a theory, but rather an eminent archaeolgist's estimate and the citation was already provided. This sentence provides context for the size and effort and ultimately worth of these heads and gives the reader something they can relate to. I can't see the need for more than that. Again, this is a survey article.

• "Nonetheless, Olmec society is thought to lack many of the institutions of later civilizations, such as a standing army or priestly caste.<ref>Serra Puche et al., p. 36.</ref>{{fact}}<!--Why? and who supports that view?-->

I'm confused since this sentence is already cited, so we know "who supports this view". Regarding the "why", I'm not sure that this survey article shuld be going into this detail.

Maunus also correctly removed a tag since the citations were already provided and discussed in the article, and I removed the 4 tags detailed in my earlier post in this section for the reasons given (i.e. this is an overview article).

Thanks, Madman (talk) 15:52, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

• This theory that there were shamans AND full-time priests reads like nonsense regarding the archaeological evidence. Such an extraordinary claim must be provided with very good arguments when you mention it. i know American archaeology makes lots of claims that are fringe opinions in European archaeology, so see this as enabling a discussion with sources.

• Again a claim that can be fringe opinion and is hard to believe and that for this reason needs some more backup.

• Again a claim that is hard to believe and can be an overrepresentation of a very fringe opinion.

• There are clear indicators for slash and burn techniques. If you point out in a footnote that they have been found everything is OK.

All in all, it needs more footnotes with short explanations. I know this is difficult, but you're making a fool of the reader if you present him the results of archaeological research as facts. They are opinions and you have to understand them like they are wrong. That's the basic lesson for every first semester in archaeology. Wandalstouring (talk) 17:47, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

• Radiocarbon dates can be calibrated or uncalibrated. And there are several different calibration curves, almost each laboratory having its own. So it's very important to know because uncalibrated samples for example tend to be "older" than calibrated. In this case it can be a margin of 100 years difference. Wandalstouring (talk) 05:51, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

It is important to specialist readers who can go get the sources themselves. It is not important to the general reader of an encyclopedia. Anyway an error margin of +/- 100 years is very little in relation to a field that has so many questions and so little knowledge as the Olmec area does. I wouldn't even imagine that Diehl or Pool supplies the information of which calibration was used in their non-specialist writings. ·Maunus·ƛ· 09:17, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

I completely agree with Maunus. I looked up my source last night, and it was Michael Coe who said that the radiocarbon dating had proved that the Olmec pre-dated the Maya. Did he go into detail? Of course not. He listed the dates found (something like 1150 - 450 BCE frm La Venta) but he certainly doesn't say "When these [radiocarbon] dates were taken, by whom were they taken, which laboratory processed them and which calibration did they use". So, should I not use Coe's assertion because he doesn't back it up? That would be totally ludicrous. "Mr. Coe, I'm sorry, you don't provide enough detail so until you do, we just can't use your information".

Alas, there are many more citation requests like this. Madman (talk) 12:19, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

OK, lets put this to rest once and for all. Yes, an archaeologist needs to know if the radiocarbon date is calibrated or uncalibrated, and if calibrated, to what standard correction curve, but the dates are probability distributions within a range (usually to 2 standard deviations) not points in time, and should be reported that way. And yes, for certain points in calibration correction curves, the calibrated versus uncalibrated date-range can differ by hundreds of years. A wikipedia article on an archaeological topic, except one on radiocarbon, does not need to mention this. The question the wikipedia article is asking is, what is the generally accepted dating of Olmec, and the article correctly reports that. Rsheptak (talk) 19:12, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Ethnicity and language tag

I added ". . . and language. . ." to the first sentence of this section and I again removed its fact tag. The language matter is discussed at length in the rest of the section and the two main theories (Maya and Mixe-Zoquean) are laid out with proper citations. 17:38, 30 September 2008 (UTC)Madman (talk)

Still it is not sourced that there are multiple theories about the ethnicity. It is sourced that there are theories about their native tongue. Wandalstouring (talk) 17:34, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

User:Maunus changed "ethnicity and language" to "ethno-linguistic affiliation", which I think covers the matter. If not, perhaps we should remove the word "ethnic", although it is my understanding that ethnicity and language were closely related or identical at this time. Maunus?? Madman (talk) 22:31, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Just take a look at native speakers of English and you will realize that there can be a heck of a difference. Remove ethnic because the only thing about ethnic is a fringe opinion. Wandalstouring (talk) 05:43, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

No it isn't, none of those studies cited are fringe. Coe is not fringe he was just probably wrong, because he was writing at an early date. Using ethnicity and linguistic affiliation near-synonymously is completely standard practice. A Maya community is a community in which the (main)language used is of the mayan family. You are picking nits that no scholar in the field would even care about. In short you can't expect this article to make distinctions that aren't made in the studies of the topic. ·Maunus·ƛ· 05:57, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Then please write that the scholar thinks he is talking about ethnicity when he refers to language. In other fields of archaeology you can't seriously publish such an opinion. Wandalstouring (talk) 06:15, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

It is not "a scholar" it is an entire academic field of Mesoamericanists. Apart from that I believe you are wrong in your strong assertions about how other fields of archaeology refer to ethnic and linguistic bpoundaries in the remote past.·Maunus·ƛ· 09:14, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Language is not the same thing as ethnicity for most contemporary, theoretically-informed archaeology, but its also true that many Mesoamerican archaeologists equate the two. Since its the prevailing standard in the subdiscipline, it has to be acceptable for the article, since to require otherwise would force them to essentially forge a new, unsourced literature for Mesoamerica. Rsheptak (talk) 19:12, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Withdraw Good Article nomination

I have no more time to work on the Good Article nomination, so I have withdrawn it from the nomination process. Maybe later. Thanks, Madman (talk) 04:15, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Take your time to work on the article. It has potential, but archaeology isn't as easy as it looks. Wandalstouring (talk) 05:44, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

We are not doing archaeology here. The article is supposed to convey to the reader the current status of the Olmec research not pose critical viewpoints on or evaluate that research. An encyclopedic article isn't a scholarly paper and one cannot expect it to have the same standard of argumentation as if it were. It is enough to merely report what others have written of course by chosing the best sources and balancing opposing viewpoints against each other. ·Maunus·ƛ· 05:53, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Well, I know we aren't allowed to evaluate or criticize. However, you have to understand how an archaeologist came to his conclusion. The "how" is the most important thing and your writing has to reflect why they think this and that. Wandalstouring (talk) 06:18, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

No, it doesn't. It is enough to know that an archaeologist wrote the book and then cite his conclusions. Archaeologists writing for general audiences for example when writing for encyclopedias do not go into details about calibrations or ceramic typologies etc. but just gives the conclusions. We can only give the "how" if the source states it specifically and often in non-specialist literature (as for example textbooks) the writer only gives a general idea of the how and doesn't go into the archaeological details. Readers with special knowledge can go to the original sources if they want that. ·Maunus·ƛ· 09:12, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Completely agree. In several cases, we're being asked to work to a higher standard than Diehl or Pool (again, authors of the two most recent general Olmec books). Too many of the requests above asked that we somehow determine how a scholar arrived at his opinion. Unless the scholar says this (and many don't - see my note about Coe & radiocarbon dates above) we just don't know. An encyclopedia overview article like this should provide information to a general audience. To quote Maunus "It is enough to merely report what others have written . . . by chosing the best sources and balancing opposing viewpoints against each other." Madman (talk) 12:19, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, an error margin of 100 years means a lot. That's possibly an archaeologists talking with non-archaeologists. Try Renfrew, Archaeology for a start on methods. Sorry, I'm usually not the hardest reviewer, but you throroughly mispresent things. I will put an expert needed template on it and see if I can fetch any to help you. I'm too busy myself with several articles and reviews, so I don't have the time to check your sources and correct you. Wandalstouring (talk) 17:05, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Of course it would be nice to know the error margin but you are asking about information that isn't in the sources! How can anyone be expected to comply with such a request? I read Renfrews Archaeology ten years ago, at introductory coursr to archaeology, thank you very much, and it is still on my shelf. But this isn't an article about archaeology it is about an historical civilization - archaeological details are not crucial here - what is at issue is whether the article represent the published sources and the scientific consensus, and whether it meets the GA criteria, which I am certain that it does.·Maunus·ƛ· 18:20, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Oh and we have two or three resident archaeology proffesors specialising in Mesoamerica that may be able to help us. User:Hoopes, User:MESmith and User:Chunchucmil. I suggest we make a call for experts on the Aztlan list as well.·Maunus·ƛ· 18:26, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

The statement "I don't have the time to check your sources and correct you" is extremely offensive.

Even worse, you are missing the point. We are writing an encyclopedia article using Wikipedia principles (which include "verifiability, not truth"). We are relying on published and in general tertiary sources, in particular Coe and Diehl and Pool, all of whom are professors of archaeology and without a doubt some of the most pre-eminent authorities on the Olmec. As encyclopedia editors, we ourselves cannot second-guess these academics, attempt to divine how they arrived at their decisions/propositions/opinions/estimates, or otherwise declare that these fellows aren't good enough. Madman (talk) 18:32, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

(remove indent) Well a lot has happened since I left these shores. I respect the decision made to remove the nomination, but feel that the reasons were not totally correct. I agree you cannot reference a reference (but a featured article was failed because museums of international status has not referenced their statements - at which point do we arrive at the OR (original reference). This is an encyclopedia for the general reader, giving them the opportunity to research further into any given subject; but being wikipedia all editors have the right to express the direction that they wish to see the article go. Now off to retrain the reprobate archaeologists I spend my days with. Oh Joy! I will close the GA discussion down, but not as a fail obviously as it was withdrawn. Hope to meet you all again at some point. Edmund Patrick – confer 19:17, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Removed compass section

I removed the following section from the article:

Based on his find of an Olmec hematite artifact in Veracruz, the American astronomer John Carlson has suggested that "the Olmec may have discovered and used the geomagnetic lodestone compass earlier than 1000 BC". If true, this "predates the Chinese discovery of the geomagnetic lodestone compass by more than a millennium". Carlson speculates that the Olmecs may have used similar artifacts as a directional device for astrological or geomantic purposes, or to orientate their temples, the dwellings of the living or the interments of the dead.

The artifact itself is part of a lodestone that had been polished into a bar with a groove at one end (that Carlson suggests may have been used for sighting). The artifact now consistently points 35.5 degrees west of north, but may have pointed north-south when whole. It is possible that the artifact was in fact used as some constituent piece of a decorative ornament. No other similar hematite artifacts have yet been found.

I've been thinking about this for a while, and this particular 2-paragraph section has been, in my opinion, unduly highlighted. The only paper written on this discovery is the cited paper by Carlson -- which is now over 30 years old -- and the matter is not even mentioned in Pool or Diehl, the two most recent general Olmec books. To compensate, however, I did slip in a cited mention of the compass in the general summary under Notable innovations.

Hope this works for you all, Madman (talk) 04:08, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes, because one find is no find. Wandalstouring (talk) 05:41, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Removed Mokaya section

I removed the following recently added paragraph:

The Olmec culture's roots are thought to lie in the Mokaya culture of Soconusco in Pacific Chiapas and Guatemala. Here, basic elements include the earliest ceramics, ballcourt, elevated house platforms, and pyramidal mounds.

This is not the consensus or mainstream viewpoint, as I understand it, but rather the theory promoted primarily by John Clark. Others argue for Guerrero, Oaxaca, or Morelos. Pool, p. 18, says that "there is little doubt that the emergence of Olmec culture was primarily a local phenomenon." We can add a paragraph that discusses all these theories, but an unreferenced paragraph devoted solely to a Mokaya origin would promote a narrow viewpoint. Madman (talk) 03:51, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Use {{cref}} and discuss it in a footnote. You can say in the article that their origin remains disputed. Wandalstouring (talk) 05:39, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

I think mention of Mokaya is useful in this article nonetheless, & its omission was a good catch by Hoopes. Article would benefit from some some summary/review of early-Formative Mesoamerican cultures in general, to place the Olmec into chronological/crosscultural context. As the general perception that the Olmec were 'first' is a common one, I think we need to address this and remind the reader that both on the Soconusco and in Lower Central America there were hierarchical and monument-building culture-complexes alongside or even predating the Gulf Coast Olmec expansion, and it's not that straightforward. The relationship between Mokaya & Olmec can be qualified, since as you note Madman there have been different proposals put forward. AFIAK there are other researchers besides Clark & Hoopes who propose Soconusco->Gulf Coast influences, and it bears mentioning along with other contemporary ideas on whether or not the Gulf Coast Olmec had beginnings or influences from elsewhere. --cjllw ʘ TALK 03:46, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Expert?!

I'm puzzled by the call for an "expert" on this article. As an archaeologist who has worked on the early formative away from the Olmec heartland, I think its actually pretty good. I could fault it for a subtle bias to the "mother culture" side of things, but non-specialists won't be interested in that argument being played out on these pages. There's not a lot here to argue with.

I don't see the 46 citation needed tags that Madman reports (so point me to them if they exist), only 5 or so, in almost every case I think the phrase is overreaching and should be removed, rather that footnoted. I'm more than willing to work on the references and editing what's there in the few free moments I get in a day.

There's no need for the "Expert" tag. Rsheptak (talk) 22:16, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

I wondered about that myself. If an expert is needed why weren't more details provided about what is wrong? an expert tag might be a good idea with details but arbritary request seems silly. Furthermore it seems like it should be put in the discussion page first unless it is extreme. Zacherystaylor (talk) 05:03, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree with both your assessments, and so I took the liberty of removing the tag.

Here, Russ, is the version of the article from last Monday with the 46 {{fact}} tags added by Wandalstouring. I have subsequently dug up a number of citations and otherwise, with a bit of help from Maunus, reduced the number to a mere 2. These last two tags tag generalized descriptive sentences that, as you note Russ, could safely be removed. Madman (talk) 05:43, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Macman2001, for pointing me to the old rev. While wikipedia is never going to be "scholarly" this demand by many editors that every sentence, instead of every group of related concepts, be footnoted,is what keeps many scholars I know from contributing. I don't interpret the demands for GA and sourcing the way these people do. It makes the articles unreadable. I suggest simply pruning the sentences that currently lack attribution to improve the article. If they're important, they can be added back, with attribution, when adequately sourced. For now, all the article needs is tweaking of the grammar. Rsheptak (talk) 19:24, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree, plenty of experts have been involved already, I only left the tag in place as a courtesy to User:Wandalstouring who put it there.·Maunus·ƛ· 06:40, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Would you publish that in an archaeological magazine? Wandalstouring (talk) 09:53, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

I am not sure I understand what/whom the question is directed at. If you mean whether the article would be publishable in an archaeological magazine then that is the wrong question. The right question is if it would qualify for GA status according to the GA criterias of wikipedia.·Maunus·ƛ· 10:31, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Maunus here. That's not the criteria for GA status. However, to answer your question, no I wouldn't publish it in say Archaeology. Its unreadable, in large part because of your insistence on sentence by sentence footnotes, and its written at a somewhat higher intellectual level than a general public piece. It reflects some scholarly bias, but magazine articles often oversimplify issues to make them more readable and tell a compelling, if often not entirely technically correct, story. See any story in Scientific American or New Scientist for example. Rsheptak (talk) 19:24, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

So you agree that it doesn't reflect state of the art science and contains errors and oversimplifications. Wandalstouring (talk) 08:14, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Errors - No, at least not major ones...oversimplifications - yes, and so does any Wikipedia article about a non-trivial subject. You seem to think this is supposed to be a scholarly article; its not. Its supposed to be something accessible to a general audience and suggest further reading if they're interested. As such its going to have to simplify and avoid "hedging" phrases to tell a coherent, compelling story, which is, after all the goal here. Writing a Wikipedia article is a process of compromises on both content and language. Rsheptak (talk) 20:10, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Deep Breath GA Renomination!

Dear Editors, I brought up the journey this particular review has taken, Wikipedia_talk:Good_article_nominations#GA_withdrawn_Olmec, and raised my concerns with the second reviewer User_talk:Wandalstouring#Olmec_second_reviewer. I would like to ask you all to reconsider the GA withdrawal and re-instate the nomination. This does not mean I will do the review on my own, in fact I may specifically ask for another reviewer to bring new thoughts to the process. It also does not mean that I disagree with all the second reviewer brought to your attention. IMHO GAs are not assisted by 46 or how ever many fact tags. A GA is a journey with company. Your thoughts please - there will be work ahead for all. Edmund Patrick – confer 21:20, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the offer, Mr. P. After finally just now closing out the last of the 46 {{fact}} tags, I find that I myself no longer have the time (or at present the patience) to devote to trying to get this thru Good Article. This last go-round with Wandalstouring has soured me on the whole GA process: there seems to be a great deal of downside - nasty discussions, complaining, twisting prose into knots to satisfy a random person's viewpoint - and there is no upside that I can see. I'm not complaining about you, Edmund -- I thought our journey was going along well and we were nearing the end of the road. But I myself don't have the energy to go through this a third time with a third person. Sorry, Madman (talk) 14:25, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

It really seems a shame that this article hasn't yet been featured on the main page. It's a well written and informative overview of a complex and at times controversial topic. It really stands as a testimony to the hard work of the regular editors, as well as the insights of many of the infrequent editors. This situation is especially unfortunate given the astonishingly poor quality of several former featured articles, as well as the often frivolous subject matter of many of this articles, which tends to involve the kind of devotion to popular culture for which Wikipedia is commonly derided. If featured status ever again becomes a possibility, I'll certainly make an effort of support. Regards, ClovisPt (talk) 22:41, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree, Clovis. And yet this article didn't even get thru the Good Article process, which ended up wasting a lot of time, in my eventual opinion, and not improving the article much at all. Thanks for your thoughts, Madman (talk) 05:10, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

References

References do not meet the standards of a GA article, especially if there's any hope to make it an FA. Citations should meet WP:CITET standards at a minimum. Harvard citations would be perfect for the type of references used in this article, and are fairly easy to use. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 07:56, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Could you give an example of what is wrong with the reference standard? That would make it easier to improve.·Maunus·ƛ· 08:16, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

At some point in the review I was going to direct you to (for example) Anti-tobacco movement in Nazi Germany as one way of improving the references and layout. It is though only one way.Edmund Patrick – confer 11:01, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

It would be more helpful to know what you think is the problem with the references, instead of just knowing that there are other referecing systems that you like better. Apart form the reference system not being fully consistent I don't se the general reference problem with the article.·Maunus·ƛ· 11:48, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

(remove indent) Apologies, one major difference I was lazily trying to point out is the the "reference in the article" is linked to "author / page number" in notes which is itself linked to the book information listed in the reference section. The references at this moment are not Harvard citations. These are fairly easy to use once one has set up and linked the Bibliography. An easier article (me being lazy again!) to drop into could be Bury St. Edmunds witch trials which if you edit the page shows a short linked word with page number(ref) leading to notes (which show the ref as per normal) to the Bibliography. I hope this is a bit clearer. Thanks. Edmund Patrick – confer 13:44, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

The GA criteria does not require anything of the reference system other than a use of inline citations in accordance with WP:CITE. Citations in footnotes and/or shortened footnotes are acceptable according to that policy.·Maunus·ƛ· 13:52, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

I do like the linking capability you show, Edmund, although it seem to would require rewriting each citation and footnote. In any case, the present reference style, termed shortened notes, is a standard and acceptable Wikipedia style and is the de facto standard for Mesoamerican articles. Madman (talk) 16:06, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

It doesn't take that much work. And yes GA standards are a bit low. If you want this to ever be an FA, then fixed the references. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 19:22, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

If we ever do decide to take the article to FA then we will of course make sure the article suits those criteria. What Madman and I have been objecting to for awhile is that the article entered to be reviewed as a GA and that it has been judged all along by a whole bunch of other criteria than the GA ones.·Maunus·ƛ· 04:51, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Recent edit

This edit[4] by User:orangemarlin I think is problematic. I think the insistence on a more academic language here obscures the point, namely that we don't know whether the Olmecs was one coherent ethnically monolithic culture or a conglomerate of ethnic groups that shared a basic material culture. I put it here in stead of reverting because my opinion may not be shared by others. Maybe we can reach a better wording together?·Maunus·ƛ· 08:15, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree completely. I think it obscures the message. This is not to say that the earlier language was perfect, only better. I will revert. Madman (talk) 14:12, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

I concur, although its still awkward. Maybe I'll take a crack at it later. That one sentence gets to the heart of What is Olmec, what are we documenting here? Rsheptak (talk) 18:45, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

You guys might tolerate poor writing, but I don't. Academic language? WTF? Don't revert again. Discuss it. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 19:20, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

OK, lets discuss. What was there was awkward and did need to be rewritten. What you replaced it with is equally flawed as far as I'm concerned. I don't think either belongs in the article for the following reasons:

• both are weak ways to end the article lead.
• both are contradicted, in whole or part, by the article content itself, where archaeologists are clearly shown to speculate about the ethnicity, political organization, and language of the Olmec, however ill-founded one may believe the arguments.

So I would propose that neither text be incorporated into the article, and that the lead section terminate with the last section of the preceding paragraph. Rsheptak (talk) 22:36, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

That's fine, Russ. I don't think that the paragraph is necessarily contradicted by the article, since the paragraph uses the qualifier "with certainty", and I thought it was useful in that it tried to set expectations of uncertainty. In any case, I've removed it. Madman (talk) 23:04, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

So, you guys think that you are smarter than me? More knowledgeable? What is it? I disagree, so YOUR decision is to just delete it? Oh well, probably not the worst thing done here.OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 23:07, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

OrangeMarlin, you should focus on the article instead of personalities. A decision to remove your prose is not an attack on your knowledge or personality, tempting as that might be. Madman (talk) 00:57, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Actually I think it is an important point that so much of what is believed about the Olmec rests on guesswork (qualified guesswork of course but still...). Especially because the layreader would tend to believe that being Olmec is a sort of ancient nationality with an Olmec empire, language and cuisine etc. if we don't specifically state that we have no idea to what degree the "archaeological Olmecs" formed a coherent culture. I think probably Rsheptak would be the right one to phrase it better. ·Maunus·ƛ· 04:55, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

This was my concern above -- that "I thought it was useful in that it tried to set expectations of uncertainty." Before something similar was written for the Mesoamerican ballgame lead, visitors to the article would post "what are the rules?" questions on the Talk page. Russ, what do you say? Madman (talk) 11:55, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

As humans we're fond of just-so stories, and archaeology is all about story telling with things. I think putting it there makes the lead weak, but could see including it elsewhere in the article and would take suggestions for another place it might fit. I can try to add something by thursday. Rsheptak (talk) 23:47, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Olmec name and experiment

I just added some information about the way they came up with the Olmec name this isn't the best source I've seen but I believe the information is accurate since I've heard it before. If anyone has more detail on it feel free to add it.

I also added something about an experiment to move colossal heads. The one I focused on was a failure I remembered a more successfull experiment on digging for the truth which I know was conducted and it was more successful but I don't have the details. If anyone has access to this effort please add it. It would have been better to put more emphasis on the more successful experiment. I think it was similar to the experiment at stonehenge by Josh Bernstein which I linked to indirectly. It is actualy discribed on the stonehenge page.

Zacherystaylor (talk) 17:24, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Zachary, thanks for the edits, but I ended up removing the information you added concerning the "Olmec" name because it was already in the article. I also pulled out the long section about attempts to move a 12-ton stone because it was off-topic. That is, it didn't say anything about the Olmec culture or people. It could perhaps be at home in an article on the colossal heads (or not), or something like Attempts to Recreate Ancient Technology.

Also, the edits were full of typos. And, finally, the article's other references and citations are almost exclusively from academic sources, and the History Channel as a reference would be out of place.

Hope I'm not too discouraging. Madman (talk) 03:46, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

The history channel does have a mixed record I'll agree with that but it is one of the biggest sources that the majority of people watch and it sometimes addresses topics that traditional scholars don't cover sufficiently. for what its worth Richard Diehl was a contributer to the show and he is the one that mentioned the part about the name. I did note that the name was on an other section that was my bad I should have read the whole article again. I have othere things to do if I have more on this that applies to the Olmec specifiacly I'll get back to it at a later date. Good day Zacherystaylor (talk) 16:43, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Moundbuilders and Timeline Question

There is reference in Coe's book America's First Civilization (p. 45)to a "[...] number of great earthen mounds, one almost 450 feet long." Published 1968 by American Heritage Publishing Co., Inc. N.Y., N.Y. As his book is already referenced in this article, can we have this additional reference inserted? Tnx

Second, there is additional reference in the book published by Smithsonian Institution "Ancient Monuments of the Mississippi Valley" to the mounds of both Mexico and Peru. It states that these ancient monuments [mounds] are found all over the intermediate country, and spread over the valley of the Mississippi to the Gulf of Mexico.

p. 211 "In Mexico and Peru, where the use of most of the metals, except iron, was well understood, the stone axe and flint-tipped arrow and lance were in common use."

p. 212 "Some spear-points of obsidian have been found, which, judging from the fragments, must have been of large dimensions. The ready fracture of this mineral, upon exposure to strong heat, has been exceedingly unfavorable to the recovery entire of any articles composed of it. This is the more to be regretted, from the fact that it is believed to be found in place only in Mexico and the volcanic regions of the South-west."

p. 213 "Arrow and lance heads, and cutting implements of the numerous varieties of quartz, embracing every shade of color and degree of transparancy, from the dull blue of the ordinary hornstone to the brilliant opalescence of the chalcedonic varieties, are frequent in the mounds. Some are worked with great skill from pure, limpid crystals of quartz, others from crystals of manganesan garnet, and others still from obsidian (the itzli of the Mexicans, and gallinazo stone of the Peruvians). It is a singular fact, however, that few weapons of stone or other materials are discovered in the sepulchral mounds; most of the remains found with skeletons are such evidently as were deemed ornamental, or recognised as badges of distinction.

p. 214 "Knives of flint and obsidian have been taken from several of the mounds. Some are identical with those of Mexico [Olmecs], most if not all of which were made of obsidian. That material, as also some varieties of flint, breaks with a very clear, conchoidal fracture. With skill and experience in the art, the mound-builders, as well as the Mexicans [Olmecs], succeeded in striking off thin, narrow slips, with edges sharp as razors. Clavigero states that so skilful were the Mexicans [Olmecs] in the manufacture of obsidian knives, that a single workman could produce a hundred per hour. These answered many of the purposes for which the more delicate cutting instruments of the present day are used, such as shaving."

I do have an open mind, but am looking closely at the Smithsonian's synthesis of the moundbuilders of the Western hemisphere for similarities/differences; found in N. Am., Meso/Central Am., and S. Am.

Third, VanDerwarker's 2006 book on the Olmecs (Farming, Hunting, and Fishing in the Olmec World), which is referenced in the current version of this article, also cites mounds/mound-building on pages 33, 36, 39, 50, and 56. The San Lorenzo and La Venta sites have "extensive mound-building and monument constructions, symbols of power wielded by regional leaders." [p. 33].

She also mentioned on page 33 that the late Formative period ranged from 400 BC-ad 100; which differs significantly from the dates of the article also. Your thoughts?

Page 36 also states that "Pollen and macrobotanical evidence from La Venta reveal that maize was cultivated there as early as 2250 BC (Rust and Leyden 1994)."

Further down page 36, she quotes Pope et al. 2001 for more recent pollen evidence from san Andres in western Tabasco, that pushes back the date of domesticated maize cultivation to 4800 BC. This again is a slightly different timeline for this culture than you state in the currently published version of the article.

I need an editor/review to consider this information for inclusion.

Best Regards,

Neser (talk) 07:41, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm about to go out, but I'll say that we can only use the 1968 book to discuss what thought was at that time. We can obviously mention where relevant Olmec mound-building in Mexico, but for any suggestions of connections to mound building in North America we would need modern reliable sources. So far as I know, that's no longer current opinion. We can't look for similarities ourselves as that would be original research (WP:OR). I'll try to comment on the dating issue later if no one else does. Dougweller (talk) 11:19, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your prompt reply Dougweller. Should I draft the proposed text and post it here for peer review? Please advise... Also there is some additional documentation concerning Olmec mound-building here: http://www.lsa.umich.edu/UofM/Content/umma/document/San%20Jose.pdf Chapter 22 and 23 and 24. Neser (talk) 21:27, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Your "second" topic seems to be to try and relate the Olmec with the various mound building cultures of native north america. This is 1930's archaeology. The similarities are superficial, at best, and the noted similaries do not control for time. I would not consent to any of this material being inserted in the article because it really has nothing to do with the Olmec. You might want to read some of Tim Pauketat's work about Cahokia. Rsheptak (talk) 15:15, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your prompt reply. Rsheptak, please clarify "do not control for time". I am not trying to relate or making original research, just quoting the research that is done by someone else; no bias here. I think this is a fascinating topic as the Watson Brake mounds in Louisiana are apparently older than the Kemetic (Ancient Eyptian) pyramids, by cardon-dating methodology. Nonetheless, what about including the documentation that the mounds in Mexico [regardless of whether their association to the Mississippian moundbuilders] included metal-working and stone-working artifacts as referenced above? Whether this is 1930's archaeology or not, I don't see how the age of the find of the actual artifacts in that culture's sites is disputable...do you? Unless we are simply avoiding facts and documented research.

No Olmec sites include metal, other than liquid mercury. No formative period sites include metal. Metal working comes into Mesoamerica from South America long after the Olmec. That's what I mean about you not controlling for time. Rsheptak (talk) 21:39, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

I believe you are mistaken Rsheptak. An abundance of Iron Ore and crafted iron ore concave mirrors have been found at numerous Olmec sites; e.g. the Early Formative period at San Jose and San Lorenzo ("pre-dating the well known mirrors from La Venta from the Middle Formative period" Chapter IV, Page 143" in Jane Pires-Ferreira's Formative MesoAmerican Exchange Networks which is specifically referencing the Olmec time periods. Please support your statements with references so we can be on the same page. Regards Neser (talk) 22:36, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Check your understanding of your sources. Iron ore is not metal, its a naturally occurring mineral.  ! In this case of mirrors its magnetite or ilmenite, I believe. Rsheptak (talk) 22:54, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your clarification. So, how would you recommend we approach the article be amended to reflect the use of Iron Ore by the Olmecs then? Neser (talk) 00:50, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Prismatic blades were also referenced in Jane Pires-Ferreira's Formative MesoAmerican Exchange Networks

Mesoamerica had prismatic blades, but I don't believe north america did. Rsheptak (talk) 21:39, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

I concur and hope that I did not present such a presumption. Neser (talk) 22:36, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Cahokia mounds are also very interesting indeed; especially the woodhenge section. The Ohio mound complexes are much more interesting though. Neser (talk) 21:27, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

(ec) Yes, agree with Rsheptak. I sincerely doubt that Clavigero could have written anything about the Olmec. He lived and wrote in the 18th century, and died about 80 years before the first Olmec monuments were unearthed and recorded. Hard to judge without seeing the full context it comes from, but it doesn't seem that interpolating 'Olmec' for 'Mexican' in that passage about obsidian blades is justified.

Couple of other quick observations: "mound" or "mound-building" can refer to a whole range of structure types. It doesn't necessarily mean the Smithsonian text or Coe are actually saying these are the same structure types, or that one region directly influenced the other. Also, re maize cultivation: it would be difficult to apply the label 'Olmec' the culture that was domesticating maize about 7000 years ago in the Tabasco region. 'Olmec' is an archaeological culture with certain built characteristics, and those characteristics are lacking that far back in the archaic era.--cjllw ʘ TALK 15:23, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your prompt reply CJLL. Please clarify what you mean when you say it would be difficult to "apply the label 'Olmec' [...]"? I would think that Dr. VanDerwarker knows what she is talking about as an anthropologist in her book. Your feedback would be appreciated on that one. Neser (talk) 22:25, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

In the passage where VanDerwarker discusses that find of teosinte and domesticated maize pollen grains at San Andres dating back to about 5000 BCE, she is not calling the society that cultivated them "Olmec". Nor does the original paper on the find, published in Science (Pope et al. 2001). Although San Andres would later become a built environment/site with Olmec characteristics, those pollen samples were not recovered in association with any physical site remains, just evidence of swidden agriculture & burn-offs. As one of the paper's coauthors, Mary Pohl, notes about the find in another context [5], "[non-specific] [a]rchaic period peoples of the Gulf Coast of México" were doing the cultivating, & these cultivational activities were one of the factors that the—much later&identifiable Olmec civilization built upon. In general, I don't think you are going to be able to find a source that claims a society producing Olmec artefacts and monuments was up and running around 5000 BCE. This is a couple thousand years too early.--cjllw ʘ TALK 06:48, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Ah, I understand now what you are getting at. Tnx. Neser (talk) 21:05, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

So, on a similar note, the research in the article Eastern North America as an independent center of plant domestication by Brude D. Smith in the American Journal of Botany (http://www.amjbot.org/cgi/content/abstract/95/2/113) supports that eastern N. Am. was the place of the initial plant domestication while stating that there appears to be a genetic relation between plants domesticated in Mexico and in the eastern N. Am. And, there is research that does point out that there was interaction/trade between the native tribes of the eastern North America and Mesoamerica during the formative period. Neser (talk) 21:27, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Also, I found another article early plant domestication in the Americas: An Asian origin for a 10,000-year-old domesticated plant in the Americas in Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. (http://www.pnas.org/content/102/51/18315.abstract) poses genetic & archaeological evidence that 10k-5k yrs ago, both plant and animal domestication occurred independently in 8 regions. The articles goes further to state that the presence of the African bottle gourd reached East Asian 9k-8k yrs ago and was widely distributed in the Americas by 8k. Interestingly, it also states that mass spec dating places the earliest specimens at 10k yrs old. This article suggests that the gourd was brought by PaleoIndians as they settled from SE Asia along the Pacific coastline (see Mitochondrial Population Genomics Supports a Single Pre-Clovis Origin with a Coastal Route for the Peopling of the Americas; The American Journal of Human Genetics 82, 583–592, March 2008). Neser (talk) 22:25, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Consider the facts of some of the oldest human remains in the Americas Luzia aka Lapa Vermelha IV Hominid I, and the Mitochondrial population genomics article above pointing out that Amerindians were not the first (ancient ones) or aboriginal colonizers of the Americas and were "part of a single founding population", and the craniometric evidence found in North America that disputes the Clovis-First theory (Nature 425, 62-65 of September 4, 2003). FYI, I do not agree with the Afro-centric models that say the Olmecs were direct transplants from Africa either. I do not, however, believe they were of the mongoloid phenotype, and probably fit closer to the Aboriginal Asiatic aka Andaman aka Melanesian Negrito, etc. found in South East Asia. This is clearly stated in the genetic mtDNA research concerning Amerindians, the DNA research concerning plant domestication and their diaspora/migration patterns. Your thoughts? Neser (talk) 22:25, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

[Side Point #1] VanDerwarker's book talks about primary plant food resources at the La Joya site across Early Classic, Terminal Formative, Late Formative, Middle Formative and Early Formative (p. 95): Avocado, Bean, Coyol, Maize and Sapote. Would it be recommended to place this data into table format and submit a draft. It is interesting research that brings to light their dietary habits. There is also some information concerning the uses the "Formative people" had of the Avocado (food, food preservative, ink, clothing dye, and medicine). Would posting this information be considered OR, or not? Let me know...

On p. 124 she talks about the types of animals that they ate based on the archaeological remains analyzed: fish, amphibians, reptils, birds and mammals. Then on later pages she dissects this even further to correlate the different types of animals and their % values against plant food resources per time period. Would this also be a good table to insert as a draft? Let me know.

There is information which points to hunting and trapping practices as a part of the culture. Shall I draft a snipped on this one also?Neser (talk) 21:27, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

If you restrict your draft snippet to material documented for the Olmec, then there should be no problem, but including material from the late formative, terminal formative, and Classic would be inappropriate. Rsheptak (talk) 21:44, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Why restrict the material documented to exclude those time periods when the good doctor VanDerwarker includes those time periods as part of the Olmec timeline in sentence #1 of Chapter #1?? Even the wiki Mesoamerican chronology article - which happens to have been recently edited by user CJLL references the Olmecs in the Early Preclassic (Formative), Middle Preclassic (Formative) and Late Preclassic (Formative). I am unclear as to the basis for your response. Is there any academic basis for your proposed restriction for excluding the late formative and terminal formative when clearly other reviewed/published wiki material supports the references I am quoting as appropriate? Neser (talk) 21:27, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

VanDerwarker's 1st sentence reads: "Chiefdoms developed along the southern Mexican Gulf Coast during the Early, Middle, Late, and Terminal Formative periods (1400-1000 BC, 1000-400 BC, 400 BC-AD 100, and AD 100-300)." Note that she is not calling these Olmec chiefdoms, or implying that these time periods (which are just the conventional Mesoamerica-wide periodisation terms) are those in which the Olmec culture flourished. Other cultures existed in this general region, both before, during and after the florescence of the material culture we today call "Olmec". As the context of passages later on in her book makes clear, the extent of Olmec culture is found in the Early and Middle Formative (or Preclassic, terms are essentially interchangable). It does not extend into the Late or Terminal Formative, or the subsequent Classic, eras. As her or any other contemporary sourcework will show (try for eg Christopher Pool's Olmec Archaeology and Early Mesoamerica [2007]), the production of Olmec material artefacts and sites was essentially finished by around 400 BCE. While of course people continued to live and build in the Gulf Coast, Tabasco & Veracruz regions, these are no longer identified as 'Olmec', but something else (eg epi-Olmec, Classic Veracruz, etc). Our Mesoamerican chronology article is entirely consistent with this. In the table Olmec sites and occupations are mentioned only for the Early and Mid Preclassic, and the timeline shows the same, with Olmec culture ceasing at 400 BCE. Likewise, where mentioned in the text this is also in agreement; I really cannot see where in this or other articles you get the idea of Olmec continuity through the Late & Terminal formative and into the Classic. --cjllw ʘ TALK 05:05, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Same page, second paragraph, first sentence: "Here I consider agricultural intensification and risk in the tropical lowlands of the Olmec hinterland during a period of political formation." How do you construe this to "not" call these Olmec chiefdoms? In the definition/understanding of the word 'hinterland', we are directly addressing the Olmec suburb east of Tres Zapotes.Neser (talk) 21:07, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

In the table of the Mesoamerican chronology, I read the timeline goes up to 400BCE. My question was why Rsheptak objected to referencing Olmec research within the timeline...upto 400 BCE; with the epi-Olmec extending into the Pre-Classic, correct?Neser (talk) 21:03, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Not sure what you mean here. Epi means "after", "post-", so the Epi-Olmec culture came after the Olmec, it's a distinct tradition that arose in central Veracruz in the Late Formative (or Late Preclassic), roughly 300BCE to 250CE. As Rsheptak was pointing out, traditions, sites and monuments that we call 'Olmec' were finished by around 400BCE; so calling an occupation or an artefact 'Olmec' if it was made after around this date, is not correct. Such sites and artefacts are identified with other, later, cultural complexes, such as the epi-Olmec. And while there's some degree of transition it's not an arbitrary divide, but one based on key differences.--cjllw ʘ TALK 08:35, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

This is what mean CJLL [five posts up]: "If you restrict your draft snippet to material documented for the Olmec, then there should be no problem, but including material from the late formative, terminal formative, and Classic would be inappropriate. Rsheptak (talk) 21:44, 28 June 2009 (UTC)" And, my point of clarification is as follows [two messages above]: 'why Rsheptak objected to referencing Olmec research within the timeline...upto 400 BCE.' Based on your timeline - not saying I necessarily agree in totality with it but that is another topic - Rsheptak's exclusion is leaving out time that is appropriately allotted for inclusion of the information discussed here.

Same page, second paragaph, last sentence onward : I consider subsistance data from two sites spanning the Formative (she does exclude the Classic) period: La Joya and Bezuapan, located in the Sierra de los Tuxtlas approximately 100km from the lowland Olmec centers. [next paragraph]Neser (talk) 21:03, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

The Tuxtla region is well suited for exploring this relationship. Settlement data from the region indicate that EARLY FORMATIVE groups were egalitarian and semi-sedantary (Arnold 2000; McCormack 2002; Santley et al. 1997). By the MIDDLE FORMATIVE period, people had settled into more permanent villages, maintaining a relative egalitarian social organization (Arnold 2000; McCormack 2002; Santley et al. 1997). The subsequent LATE and TERMINAL FORMATIVE periods were marked by the emergence of a regional site hierarchy and increasing social differentiation, though the manifestion of social inequality in the Tuxtlas was not as pronounced as among lowland Olmec groups (Santley et al. 1997; Stark and Arnold 1997a).Neser (talk) 21:03, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Curious. The book clearly states the topic relates to the Olmec, but you presume it is not about the Olmec....? So the whole premise of the title of the book and Doctor VanDerwarker's association of the La Joya and Bezuapan to the Olmecs is false? That sounds like false advertising and deplorable scholarship... ;-) Well, I am a newcomer here so I am requesting clarification on how you disassociated the book (and the two hinterland sites) with the Olmecs when Dr. VanDerwarker clearly associates them; both overtly/directly and covertly/indirectly through her use of the English language. Neser (talk) 21:03, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Chapter 3-Politics and Farming in the Olmec world, paragraph 2: "The nature of Olmec political organization has long been a subject of contention in mesoamerican archaeology. Traditionally, the debate has centered on the scale of political complexity - particularly, whether the Olmec constituted a chiefdom or a state (Bove 1978; Demarest 1989; Diehl 1989; Drucker 1981; Earle 1976; Grove 1981, 1997)." So what civilization/culture/group/tribe/whatever classification you are applying is she talking about in Chapter 1, paragraph 1, sentence 1? I'm confused and don't understand...please help.Neser (talk) 21:03, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

[Side Point #2] Jane Pires-Ferreira's Formative MesoAmerican Exchange Networks discusses trade network between the various sites, based on the time period. OBSIDIAN EXCHANGE NETWORKS (p. 29-98)

• Early Formative Obsidian exchange networks [abbreviated EN] : Guadalupe Victoria, El Chayal, Barranca de los Estetes, Zinapecuaro.
• Middle Formative Obsidian EN: Guadalupe Victoria-Barranca de los Estetes, El Chayal, Barranca de los Estetes, Unknown Oaxacan; and, distribution of obsidian in Formative mesoamerican households.

SHELL EXCHANGE NETWORKS (p. 99-142)

• Early Formative Shell EN: Pacific Coast, Atlantic Drainage.
• Middle Formative Shell EN: Pacific Coast, Atlantic Drainage.

IRON ORE EXCHANGE NETOWRKS (p. 143-251)

• Early Formative: Magnetite Mirror Production and Exchange
• Middle Formative: Localized Iron Ore Mirror Production [p. 194-199 has tables that describe concave mirrors; some of which ar eperformated for suspension]

I will start small, but will post some snippets from the above references for peer review prior to posting as I think it is relevant to documenting more about this civilization/culture. Neser (talk) 21:27, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

There's some material about this already in the article. I would rather see it described in text than done as maps. It would be nice to see the Gulf Coast bias of this article shaken up a bit. Rsheptak (talk) 21:44, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

LOL! Great. Umm...what is this 'Gulf Coast bias' you are referring to? We are supposed to be impartial/unbiased, right?  :-) Neser (talk) 22:36, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

You see a whole lot about the Olmec outside of the Gulf Coast in this article? There's nothing significant about Oaxaca, Chalcatzingo, Chalchuapa, etc. When I first read it it was all Coe and Diehl; at least now its got other sources. Rsheptak (talk) 22:54, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

What is the 'Gulf Coast bias' though?Neser (talk) 02:23, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

I think all that Rus means is that this article formerly only really covered Olmec/Olmecoid artefacts and presence in the Gulf Coast region, ie the so-called Olmec heartland. There was no/minimal coverage on the many sites with Olmec/Olmecoid influences that there are beyond this Gulf Coast region, for eg in Oaxaca and Guerrero. And that's still pretty much the case, for greater balance and completion of coverage on the topic of the Olmec, more needs to be introduced here to describe these 'non-heartland' sites and influences (and the debates about the extent & direction of said influences). --cjllw ʘ TALK 02:47, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Thank you both for your input and clarifications. If I find something to help address this bias, I am certain to present it for vetting. Regards Neser (talk) 19:48, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Also, when you said it was all Coe and Diehl...what do you mean? I am holding the hard copy of the dissertation Pires-Ferriera submitted for her Ph.D. in Anthropology @ U of Michigan which became the published article and it has 30 pages in the bibliography...Neser (talk) 02:23, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Again, I think all this means is that prior versions of this article relied very heavily on Coe and Diehl as its sources. While these are both extremely admirable sources, it's always better to have a wider and more representative array of references used in compiling wide-ranging articles of this type (or really, of any type). --cjllw ʘ TALK 02:47, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

NOTE - If I want to insert pictures of maps from this article, can someone help? There is a map of the obsidian sources as determined via correlation matrix analysis that is not difficult to perceive, yet helpful in understanding how the obsidian was sourced and moved within this culture. (p. 80). Neser (talk) 21:27, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

That map in the article would be copyrighted, so we'd be unable to reproduce/insert it here on wikipedia, without explicit permission. Alternative is to create a map from scratch oneself, which however would need to cite exactly what source(s) of info were used in its compiliation. Re Mesoamerican obisidian sources, we have an article on Obsidian use in Mesoamerica, and it contains one such user-created map, namely File:Mesoamerican obsidian sourc.png. --cjllw ʘ TALK 02:54, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

The picture of a stone mask described as "Olmec style" is not Olmec. It is in the Teotihuacan style. Please take another picture. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.217.223.16 (talk) 22:04, 23 September 2010 (UTC)