Talk:Olmec alternative origin speculations/Archive 1

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

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

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


 * It's worth remembering that there is absolutely zero evidence of any African influence in ancient Central America. No African artefacts, no known genetic links. Nothing. All of this speculation derives from the fact that the Olmec busts look vaguely Negroid. That's it. Given that they are clearly stylised, that's almost no evidence at all, but even if they did give us some indication of the physiognomy of Olmecs it's a huge leap to suggest African exploration. I'd have thought the presence of Australoid or Negrito elements in the population would be far far more likely.
 * Anyway, what we really need is a proper account of the historical development of Olmec culture, so I will try to add it. Paul B 013:15, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)


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


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


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


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

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

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


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


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


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


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

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


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


 * What about this sentence which appears on many sites: Over a decade ago Winters (1979, 1997) deciphered the Olmec writing and discovered that you could read the Olmec inscriptions using the sound value of the Vai signs. Are you saying that they didn't decipher the language? It seems to me that they deciphered the Olmec and Mayan languages, and are trying to sweep under the rug the fact that they used African languages to do it. I'm not 'afrocentric' at all, Ive just seen this same information in quite alot of sites, it seems to be more than just 'fringe'. And for serious scholarly publications, what about Rafinesque in 1832 who "published an important paper on the Mayan writing that helped in the decipherment of the Olmec Writing". "Leo Wiener (1922, v.3), was the first researcher to recognize the resemblance's between the Manding writing and the symbols on the Tuxtla statuette. In addition, Harold Lawrence (1962) noted that the "petroglyphic" inscriptions found throughout much of the southern hemisphere compared identically with the writing system of the Manding." and also "Paper presented at the 1997 Central States Anthropological Society Meeting, treating Olmec as a West African language." I also found a page once which showed the correlation with the symbols, cant seem to find it now. This one does it though not as well:   Astrokey44 00:00, 15 November 2005 (UTC)


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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


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


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


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

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


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

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

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


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


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

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


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


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


 * Perhaps you would find support for your groundbreaking theory here Talk:Kennewick Man Paul B 11:01, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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


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


 * A fine analysis, Paul. It only remains to add (should any further demonstration be required) that with regards to the supposed 'decipherment' and identification of the Olmec script as reflecting a language from Africa (generally one of the Mande languages), this too is without credible foundation and dismissed by all but a few avowed Afrocentrist authors. This claim was first popularised by the likes of Ivan van Sertima in the 1970s based on some earlier comments of alleged similarities between Olmec and Maya inscriptions on the one hand, and two indigenous African scripts, Vai and Libyco-Berber on the other. One Afrocentrist author, Clyde Winters, has even gone so far as to claim to have "deciphered the Olmec writing and discovered that you could read the Olmec inscriptions using the sound value of the Vai signs. The Olmecs spoke and aspect of the Manding (Malinke-Bambara) language spoken in West Africa".
 * But this is apparent nonsense. The Vai syllabary was actually only created in the 19th century, and their claims rather do a disservice to the native Liberian Duala Bukare, whose ingenious creation it was. As for Libyco-Berber, this is actually a script of the Tuareg Berbers, and not "black west africa"; nevertheless Winters claims Vai is actually older (despite its origins being historically attested), and that Libyco-Berber can be used to write a Mande language. As for the rest of the claims for similarities in writing, you only need a passing familiarity with Maya and Olmec inscriptions to realise that Winters' reproduced drawings are laughably inaccurate (in all likelyhood deliberately so, since they are altered to emphasise the correspondence).
 * It is rather lamentable that debate on this topic takes up the entirety of this talk page, and that much time is spent going over the same old ground. I'd propose that we keep a set of pro forma responses pinned to the top of this talk page, to serve as a handy reminder in case of future editors seeking to unilaterally impose views (or 'add information', if you prefer) which have already been rejected. I was thinking something along the lines of, "If you've come to this article with the intention of expanding upon alternate theories such as Olmec-Africa contact, please be aware that many of the considerations of the material have already been reviewed and discussed here. Before attempting an addition or rewrite, consider whether the material has already been debated and its suitability for inclusion (or not) decided upon. In particular, while it may be a legitimate exercise to outline (with citation) what these theories propose, it is not legitimate to present endorsement of such claims as widely-held by the scientific community.", or some such wording...you get the drift. The main recurring arguments could even be bullet-pointed, for ease of reference. The hope would be that this may at least forestall some of the more specious arguments being made, and cut down on the need to rehash it all out every time some new contributor with these views comes along &mdash; but a hope which is probably forlorn.--cjllw | TALK  14:03, 13 March 2006 (UTC)