Talk:Olmecs/Archive 3

BCE/AD-a question for the community at large-is there a consensus
Although, this article was originally started using the AD/BC style, sometime in 2007(if I remember correctly from my earlier scan of the edit history of the article) it was changed to CE/BCE. It has remained stable under this style since this edit in March 2007, until today with this edit by User:Varlaam. This is a non christian culture, that actually came into existence 1500 years and disappeared 400 years before even the birth of christ. It has now been edited for almost 4 years under this style, remaining relatively stable until an editor comes along and digs thru page after page after page of diffs to find a reason to change it back .Is there a consensus of editors here to change this to the CE system?  He  iro 07:55, 28 November 2010 (UTC)


 * I prefer to use BC/AD in my articles but that's just me. After 4 years as CE/BCE I don't think there's any reason to be reverting it now. Simon Burchell (talk) 09:49, 28 November 2010 (UTC)


 * I agree, and Varlaam appears to be on some sort of campaign on this issue. He seems to be searching for articles he can change to BC/AD, usually those that started that way but occasionally ones that started as BC/BCE. Dougweller (talk) 10:37, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

"The ancient Olmecan culture, apparently had its center in the San Andres Tuxtla area around Lake Catemaco, and extended down to the coast of the Gulf of Mexico in the southern part of the State of Vera Cruz."

Source http://facweb.stvincent.edu/academics/religiousstu/writings/lavin1.htm

Lake Catemaco and Human Sacrifice
I notice that there is no mention of one of the Olmec regions most notable feature. I went looking to find the name of the lake visible in the map and found this article and there apparently are a lot of links to the present day occupation of Lake Catemaco. but then, i noticed that it is also mentioned in another Wiki article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Veracruz about Veracruz itself.

The question of the African origins does have some proof that has been genetically proven possible... but they weren't Africans, they were aborigines from Australia http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/430944.stm They have proven these people lived in South America from identical paintings, physical remains and dna. So the possibility that some of these people may have moved North is probable considering that the skulls dug up come from 9,000 to 12,000 years ago. It may be that Asiatics arrived to find native peoples who they elevated to positions of reverence. All speculative but the possibility would answer why the Olmc stone heads have what appear to be African features when the features are actually more like that of Australian Aborigines who have a much broader face and it has now been proven they were there where as there is not an ounce of proof any Africans were there. The information I provide here is verifiable... but the part of the Australian Aborigines I state clearly is speculative but far more likely than it being Africans as you list in the article as a possibility. Sources cited and there are more sources than this available.

http://gallery.sjsu.edu/sacrifice/precolumbian.html this is an article which discusses the child cult believed to have existed among the Olmec

Then there are sites like El Manati which reveal dismembers children suggesting human sacrifice was part of the suspected child cult http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/El_Manat%C3%AD http://www.doaks.org/publications/doaks_online_publications/Social/social09.pdf http://pt.wikipedia.org/wiki/El_Manat%C3%AD

Armorbeast (talk) 03:42, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
 * You know what, find an iron clad peer reviewed WP:RELIABLE source and we can discuss it. No speculation, no wish washey, no wanna, no aliens or egyptions, etc. A real reliable, peer reviewed main stream, non WP:FRINGE non Fortean source. And we can talk.  He  iro 07:14, 15 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Armorbeast, you need to read Luzia Woman as your BBC article is out of date (and shows why relying on news sources for this sourt of thing is tricky.). Dougweller (talk) 08:20, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

please remove the alternate origin specualtion section
this is a)rejected by nearly all historians b) a fringe theory and thus not supported and c) to argue this section is needed would mean you MUST also put an alternate origin section on the pages about Chinese, Spanish and every other empire out there as there are those who believe china was founded by Africans....it is a theory, however plausible. in fact it seems unfair, and may i even say a bit racist that Native Americans are the only ones that have fringe theories on their page, yet no one else does. why is that? so either remove that section or ad a similar one to every other empire or country. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.174.13.124 (talk) 09:54, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Inventions: Compass
Yale archaeologist, Dr Michael Coe discovered a small piece of worked metallic ore at San Lorenzo on the Gulf Coast which seemed to function as a compass. Similar items are found at all of the Olmec sites near the garbage dumps and probably were used originally as fire starter elements to protect the hand. If coupled with the fact that most pyramids at these Olmec sites are aligned with what would have been magnetic north at the time, it seems plausible that they had use of the compass more than 1000 years before China. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Driskillsmith (talk • contribs) 15:53, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
 * We'd need a source such as Coe claiming these were compasses in order to add that to the article. Dougweller (talk) 17:01, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

GA1 discussion (transcluded)
It says "The Olmec Flourished during Mesoamericas formative period. How can this be true when the culture that inhabited Mesoamerica under that period i still unknown?

Not sure if I am entering comments properly, but I'd like to make a few fundamental points:

- given the long-standing disagreement over the origins of the Olmec culture, then it seems hazardous to brand any particular area as a 'Heartland'; this was, and remains an unfortunate historical choice of words which imparts an apriori judgement of an open academic question - if, as is often stated, Olmec culture is primarily identified as an artistic style then the world Heartland becomes fairly meaningless - the choice of 'beyond the heartland' implies ancillary cultural development when, by virtue of simple physical evidence, the 'beyond' development, in total, seems to significantly surpass influence and development as evidenced in the 'heartland'

There was a far greater Olmec presence along the Rio Balsas drainage than is known/accepted by most archaeologists. Covarrubias understood this and nothing in the subsequent decades has refuted his early and fundamental view on the subject -- Teopantecuanitlan is merely a singular exclamation point, and many sites remain to be found and researched, funding and interest permitting.

71.214.187.27 (talk) 18:27, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Any DNA evidence Research should be included
Is there any DNA research on Olmec anything? It would be nice to see it in this article.--Inayity (talk) 15:54, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't think dna exists so it should not be included.Kfiulis (talk) 12:52, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

2 etymology sections
One actually a subsection, bit I think one is enough. Doug Weller (talk) 06:43, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 29 August 2019 and 10 December 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Sofixla.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 05:39, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Olmec. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121024235315/http://library.thinkquest.org/28059/olmecas.htm to http://library.thinkquest.org/28059/olmecas.htm
 * Added tag to http://artworld.uea.ac.uk/cms/index.php?q=node%2F873
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060617131711/http://www.doaks.org/Social/social07.pdf to http://www.doaks.org/Social/social07.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070221182955/http://www.doaks.org/Social/social09.pdf to http://www.doaks.org/Social/social09.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081002154243/http://email.eva.mpg.de/~wichmann/Olmecs.pdf to http://email.eva.mpg.de/~wichmann/Olmecs.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 00:00, 6 December 2017 (UTC)