User talk:Olmec98

Your edits at Olmec
Hi there. Please do not insert large text dumps which are taken directly (in this case) from papers by Mr. Winters. Apart from the contentious and demonstrably marginal nature of the material (ie his is a minority view in the field and does not represent what consensus scholarship has to say about Olmec origins), it is a violation of copyright to reproduce it in wikipedia. Please see WP:COPYVIO, any further attempts to do so will also be reverted. Regards, --cjllw | TALK  01:32, 21 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Hi. Please review the above links about editing Wikipedia. Understand that as a free content encyclopedia, one of the most important editing concerns is not to violate copyrights. Continuing to do so can result in your being blocked from editing. Also, please try not to get into revert and counter revert battles-- try discussing differences on article talk pages. I see you have gotten into some controvercial topics. See NPOV. You are certainly entitled to whatever your point of view is, but please edit according to Wikipedia practices. I hope this helps. -- Infrogmation 03:35, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Short term block
In accordance with Wikipedia policy, you have been given a short term block for multiple reverts without discussion; see the "Revert wars considered harmful (the three revert rule)" section at Help:Reverting. Please take some time out from editing to familiarize yourself with Wikipedia practices and procedures. After the 24 hour editing block expires, you are welcome to return to editing in accordance with Wikipedia policies. Continued violation of Wikipedia policies can result in a longer term block. Hope this helps, -- Infrogmation 03:41, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Olmec discussions (continued)
Hi there Olmec98/Clyde Winters, thanks for your post at my talk page. I would think (or hope) that all of us here would be more than amenable to discussing ways to reach consensus in improving the Olmec article, within the framework of what wikipedia is and is not.

I would suggest however that such discussion be continued on at the article's talk page -talk:Olmec- which would be the most appropriate and visible place for all interested parties to participate. It would perhaps be best if you were to outline your proposed additions to the article there first; likewise, if there are statements in the existing text which you may question, these too should be highlighted for discussion.

I'd also recommend reviewing the links to wikipedia policies and guidelines provided in the welcome message above; these are intended to orientate new editors to the way things work (or are supposed to work) around here. Particularly important are the policies of Neutral Point of View, No Original Research and What Wikipedia is not, but the others should be useful too.

I note that you've signed your post as Clyde Winters. Now I've no way of knowing whether you are the Dr Winters whose material available elsewhere had been added verbatim to the article. If so (and I suppose that it's as good to declare such interest up front) then you should appreciate first the (main) reasons why those additions were reverted (and also partially why the temporary block was imposed). Without an explicit and recorded statement from the author such material cannot be added here as it could be held to be an infringement of copyright. See in particular this link for an overview of copyrights in wikipedia, and this one for the permissions process. Anything written into a wikipedia article is by default licensed under the public GNU Free Documentation License, and so if you are in fact the original author of that material then you would first need to consider the ramifications of releasing your material here.

However, even if you/Dr Winters were to provide such explicit permission and release of that text here under the GFDL, that does not mean that the material would be suitable for inclusion in the article (as is) in any event, or that it would not be subsequently altered, amended or deleted if it were to be included. It will depend on what is submitted and whether any consensus can be formed about whether or what to include. Regards, --cjllw | TALK  08:26, 22 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Below I have presented a possible revision of the the Alternative Views on Olmecs for your review (also posted at User talk:CJLL Wright). Here is the revision:


 * Some writers claim that the Olmec were related to the Mande peoples of West Africa, based on interpretation of a wide range of evidence including skeletal, linguistic, epigraphic, religious and anthropological data. There is archaeological evidence for African Blacks in Mexico Numerous African skeletons have been discovered at ancient sites in Mexico. Constance Irwin and Dr. Wiercinski (1972) have both reported that skeletal remains of Africans have been found in Mexico. Constance Irwin, in Fair Gods and Stone Faces, says that anthropologist see "distinct signs of Negroid ancestry in many a New World skull...."Dr. Wiercinski (1972) claims that some of the Olmecs were of African origin. He supports this claim with skeletal evidence from several Olmec sites where he found skeletons that were analogous to the West African type black. Many Olmec skulls show cranial deformations according to Pailles, yet Wiercinski (1972b) was able to determine the ethnic origins of the Olmecs. Marquez (1956, 179-80) made it clear that a common trait of the African skulls found in Mexico include marked prognathousness ,prominent cheek bones are also mentioned . Fronto-occipital deformation among the Olmec is not surprising because cranial deformations was common among the Mande speaking people until fairly recently (Desplanges, 1906).Many African skeletons have been found in Mexico. Carlo Marquez (1956, pp.179-180) claimed that these skeletons indicated marked pronathousness and prominent cheek bones.  A. Wiercinski, used classic diagnostic traits determined by crniometric and cranioscopic methods using the Polish Comparative-Morphological School skeletal reference collection (SRC), found that 13.5% of the skeletons from Tlatilco and 4,5% of the skeletons from Cerro de las Mesas were of West Africans. Diehl and Coe (1996) admitted that the inspiration of Olmec Horizon A, common to San Lorenzo's iniitial phase has been found at Tlatilco. R.A. Diehl claims that some many skeletons have been recently found at Tlatilco, that some archarologists believe the site was a necropolis Moreover, the pottery from this site is engraved with Olmec signs. To determine the racial heritage of the ancient Olmecs, Dr. Wiercinski (1972b) used classic diagnostic traits determined by craniometric and cranioscopic methods. These measurements were then compared to a series of three crania sets from Poland, Mongolia and Uganda to represent the three racial categories of mankind.To determine the racial heritage of the ancient Olmecs, Dr. Wiercinski (1972b) used classic diagnostic traits determined by craniometric and cranioscopic methods. These measurements were then compared to a series of three crania sets from Poland, Mongolia and Uganda to represent the three racial categories of mankind.The only European type recorded in this table is the Alpine group which represents only 1.9 percent of the crania from Tlatilco.The other alleged "white" crania from Wiercinski's typology of Olmec crania, represent the Dongolan (19.2 percent), Armenoid (7.7 percent), Armenoid-Bushman (3.9 percent) and Anatolian (3.9 percent). The Dongolan, Anatolian and Armenoid terms are euphemisms for the so-called "Brown Race" "Dynastic Race", "Hamitic Race",and etc.,  which racist Europeans claimed were the founders of civilization in Africa.Keita (1993,1996) , Carlson and Gerven (1979) and MacGaffey (1970) have made it clear that these people were Africans or Negroes with so-called 'caucasian features' resulting from genetic drift and microevolution (Keita, 1996; Poe, 1997). This would mean that the racial composition of 26.9 percent of the crania found at Tlatilco and 9.1 percent of crania from Cerro de las Mesas were of African origin.The races recorded by Wiercinski are based on the Polish Comparative-Morphological School (PCMS). The PCMS terms are misleading. As mentioned earlier the Dongolan , Armenoid, and Equatorial groups refer to  African people with varying facial features which are all Blacks. This is obvious when we look at the iconographic and sculptural evidence used by Wiercinski (1972b) to support his conclusions.Wiercinski (1972b) compared the physiognomy of the Olmecs to corresponding examples of Olmec sculptures and bas-reliefs on the stelas. For example, Wiercinski (1972b, p.160) makes it clear that the clossal Olmec heads represent the Dongolan type.  It is interesting to note that the empirical frequencies of the Dongolan type at Tlatilco is .231, this was more than twice as high as Wiercinski's theorectical figure of .101, for the presence of Dongolans at Tlatilco.The other possible African type found at Tlatilco and Cerro were the Laponoid group. The Laponoid group represents the Austroloid-Melanesian type of (Negro) Pacific Islander, not the Mongolian type. If we add together the following percent of the Olmecs represented in Table 2, by the Laponoid (21.2%), Equatorial (13.5), and Armenoid (18.3) groups we can assume that at least 53 percent of the Olmecs at Tlatilco were Africans or Blacks. Using the same figures recorded in Table 2 for Cerro,we observe that 40.8 percent of these Olmecs would have been classified as Black if they lived in contemporary America.Rossum (1996) has criticied the work of Wiercinski because he found that not only blacks, but whites were also present in ancient America. To support this view he (1) claims that Wiercinski was wrong because he found that Negro/Black people lived in Shang China, and 2) that he compared ancient skeletons to modern Old World people.First, it was not surprising that Wiercinski found affinities between African and ancient Chinese populations, because everyone knows that many Negro/African /Oceanic skeletons (referred to as Loponoid by the Polish school) have been found in ancient China . These Blacks were spread throughout Kwangsi, Kwantung, Szechwan, Yunnan and Pearl River delta.Skeletons from Liu-Chiang and Dawenkou, early Neolithic sites found in China, were also Negro. Moreover, the Dawenkou skeletons show skull deformation and extraction of teeth customs, analogous to customs among Blacks in Polynesia and Africa.Secondly, Rossum argues that Wiercinski was wrong about Blacks in ancient America because a comparison of modern native American skeletal material and the ancient Olmec skeletal material indicate no admixture. The study of Vargas and Rossum are flawed. They are flawed because the skeletal reference collection they used in their comparison of Olmec skeletal remains and modern Amerindian propulations because the Mexicans have been mixing with African and European populations since the 1500's. The SRC Rossom used included skeletal material that was labled modern Mexican in his study. Wiercinski on the otherhand, compared his SRC to an unmixed European and African sample. This comparison avoided the use of Amerindian and Mestizo skeletal material that is clearly mixed with Africans and Europeans, in much the same way as the Afro-American people he discussed in his essay who have acquired "white" features since mixing with whites due to the slave trade.A. von Wuthenau (1980) , and Wiercinski (1972b) highlight the numerous art pieces depicting the African or Black variety which made up the Olmec people . This re-anlysis of the Olmec skeletal meterial from Tlatilco and Cerro  , which correctly identifies Armenoid, Dongolan and Loponoid as euphmisms for "Negro" make it clear that a substantial number of the Olmecs were Blacks support the art evidence and writing which point to an African origin for Olmec civilization.Physical anthropologist use many terms to refer to the African type represented by Olmec skeletal remains including Armenoid, Dongolan, Loponoid and Equatorial. The evidence of African skeletons found at many Olmec sites, and their trading partners from the Old World found by Dr. Andrzej Wiercinski prove the cosmopolitan nature of Olmec society.The Atlantic Slave Trade seems to have caused a large admixture of African genes among Amerinds,  This has left many components of these Old World people within and among Mexican Amerindians.The iconography of the classic Olmec and Mayan civilization show no correspondence in facial features. But many contemporary Maya and other Amerind groups show African characteristics and DNA. Underhill, et al (1996) found that the Mayan people have an African Y chromosome . Some researchers claim that as many as seventy-five percent of the Mexicans have an African heritage (Green et al, 2000) . Although this may be the case Cuevas (2004) says these Africans have been erased from history .The admixture of Africans and Mexicans make it impossible to compare pictures of contemporary Mexicans and the Olmec. James l. Gutherie (2000) in a study of the HLAs in indigenous American populations, found that the Vantigen of the Rhesus system, considered to be an indication of African ancestry, among Indians in Belize and Mexico centers of Mayan civilization. Dr. Gutherie also noted that A*28 common among Africans has high frequencies among Eastern Maya. It is interesting to note that the Otomi, a Mexican group identified as being of African origin and six Mayan groups show the B Allele of the ABO system that is considered to be of African origin .In a discussion of the Mexican and African admixture in Mexico Lisker et al (1996) noted that the East Coast of Mexico had extensive admixture. The following percentages of African ancestry were found among East coast populations: Paraiso - 21.7%; El Carmen - 28.4% ;Veracruz - 25.6%; Saladero - 30.2%; and Tamiahua - 40.5%. Among Indian groups, Lisker et al (1996) found  among the Chontal have 5% and the Cora .8% African admixture .The Chontal speak a Mayan language. According to Crawford et al. (1974), the mestizo population of Saltillo has 15.8% African ancestry, while Tlaxcala has 8% and Cuanalan 18.1%. The Olmecs built their civilization in the region of the current states of Veracruz and Tabasco. Now here again are the percentages of African ancestry according to Lisker et al (1996): Paraiso - 21.7%  ; El Carmen - 28.4% ; Veracruz - 25.6% ; Saladero - 30.2% ; Tamiahua - 40.5%.  Paraiso is in Tabasco and Veracruz is, of course, in the state of Veracruz. Tamiahua is in northern Veracruz. These areas were the first places in Mexico settled by the Olmecs. I'm not sure about Saladero and El Carmen.Given the frequency of African admixture with the Mexicans a comparison of Olmec mask, statuettes and other artifacts show many resemblances to contemporary Mexican groups.But a comparison of Olmec figures with ancient Mayan figures , made before the importation of hundreds of thousands of slaves  Mexico during the Atlantic Slave Trade  show no resemblance at all to the Olmec figures.This does not mean that the Maya had no contact with the Africans.This would explain the "puffy" faces of contemporary Amerinds, which are incongruent with the Mayan type associated with classic Mayan sculptures and stelas.
 * Dr. Leo Wiener in Africa and the Discovery of America, suggested that the Olmec probably used a Mande writing system . Dr. Wiener after comparing the writing on the Tuxtla statuette was analogous Manding writing engraved on rocks in Mandeland. Wiener (1922) and Lawrence (1961) maintain that the Olmec writing was identical to the Manding (Malinke-Bambara) writing used in Africa. Matthew Stirling found an engraved celt in Offering No.4 at La Venta. Dr. Clyde Winters compared the symbols on the Tuxtla and La  Venta celt and found that they were similar to each other and the symbols associated with the Vai  writing. This proved that the signs found in the Olmec writing are related to the Vai syllabary a Mande speaking people of West Africa. The Mande originally lived in North Africa. There are many inscriptions written in this script spreading from the Fezzan to the  ancient Mande cities of Tichitt . Mauny and others have identified the North African petroglyphs identified as writing, they have been definitively connected to Vai, an African language, which Deloffose has noted was created in ancient times according to Vai informants . The writing found among the Vai and along the Chariots routes leading to Tichitt is related to the Libyco-Berber writing. Many of these inscriptions like the inscription at Oued Mertoutek date back to Olmec times. Using the Vai characters Dr. Clyde Winters deciphered  the Olmec script in 1979, claimed that Olmec symbols are a script that encodes a Mande language.  As a result of his decipherment we know that the Olmec called themselves Xi/Si.
 * RegardsClyde Winters 13:09, 28 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Clyde/Olmec98, I have moved your suggested amendments from my user talk page to the article's talk page, talk:Olmec alternative origins speculations, which I think would be the most appropriate place for its general discussion. Please continue any further points you may have at the article's talk page. Regards,--cjllw | TALK  00:26, 29 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Cjllw, thanks for the information. I will continue any discussion of this material at the page you proposed. Please check and see if it is set up. I could not find the page.Clyde Winters 01:52, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Changing Skeletal Evidence relating to Wiercinski Examination of Olmec Skeletons
Infrogmation There is someone who keeps changing the fact that the skeletons examined from Tlatilco and Cerros de las Mesas were excavated by Stirling and all date to the Olmec period. This is made clear by the professor at the following site#REDIRECT[] Please stop this person from making these corrections because they are untrueClyde Winters 04:29, 29 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I am the one who keeps changing the skeleton evidence. I make two basic points:

These are the facts. Madman 12:57, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
 * That Tlatilco is outside the traditional Olmec heartland. Although the skeletons apparently dated from the Pre-classic period, Tlatilco is hundreds of miles away from the heartland. These skeletons are from the same general period as the Olmecs.
 * That the Cerro de las Mesas skeletons were excavated from within the Olmec heartland, but date from the Classic period, which was perhaps 1000 years after the Olmecs.


 * My reponse:

I agree Diehl never calls Tlatilco an Olmec site. But He does refer to the Olmec artifacts found at the site belong to an Olmec style. C. Niederberger refers to the Olmec period at Tlatilco as the Olmec -style horizon. In the article I will refer to Tlatilco Olmec-style horizon.

Controversy surrounds the dating of the Cerro de les Mesas site. Some people place it in the Classic period.

Drucker who found the artifacts maintained that they dated to the Olmec III period or what we call the Terminal Olmec and Epi Olmec periods. It is clear that these artifacts had been moved so we can not determine the exact date. The monuments at Cerro de les Mesas are believed to have been built later than the Olmec artifacts found in the Cerro de les Mesas graves. These artifacts would include stelaes 4,9,11 and monuments 2 and 5 according to Ignacio Bernal. Moreover, the Olmec canoe found by Drucker at Cerro de les Mesas, is of the same form as the jade canoe effigy and hand vessel which date between 1500-500 BC(see: Jill Gutherie (Ed.), The Olmec World: Ruler and Rulership, p.194). The affinity of the Cerro de les Mesas canoe and the canoes of unknown provenance in Mexico, suggest that the Cerro de les Mesas artifacts date to the same period. This would agree with Drucker's placement of the Olmec phase of Cerro de les Mesas in the Olmec III period. As a result, you can not really claim that the Olmec horizon at Cerro de les Mesas dates to the Classic period.

Madman stop posting the misinformation that the skeletons of Africans came from six sites. You have already read the introduction to Wiercinski's paper and he discussed only two sites. Why do you want to spread this falsehood. Your insistence on writing untruths about Wiercinski's research leads me to conclude that you are not really interested in presenting a balanced view of Wiercinski's research. It appears to me your only purpose is to spread misinformation to deny the importance of Wiercinski's research, and imply that the skeletons examined by Wiercinski were not from the Olmec period.Clyde Winters 22:42, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Let's work together to improve this article
Olmec98, I would like to work with you to create a better Wikipedia article highlighting the alternative Olmec origins. To do this, we need to follow all the Wikipedia guidelines and rules. In particular, we cannot use Wikipedia to preach ("Wikipedia has a neutral point of view"), we must use the proper style, and we must state the consensus viewpoint.

Within this framework, I believe that we (you) can nonetheless present the available research and theories on the "Olmecs as Africans". Let's work together on the proper phrasing, wording, and structure. Madman 20:35, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Madman, I would also like to work with you on this piece. I especially like the graphic which showed the number of skeletons examined from Tlatilco and Cerro de les Mesas. But I do not see where the piece is presently preaching. It is written in a manner that states the facts as they exist. You talk about consensus viewpoint, the articles as it is presently written does present the data indicating an African influence among the Olmec. The status quo view is already outlined in the main Olmec article where it belongs since these people don't accept any alternative views regarding the Olmec. If you notice I have not attempted to remove the statement at the end of each section that the material is not supported by most researchers. Your continual assertion that Wiercinski is discussing six sites in his articles indicate to me that you don't really want to work together improving this piece. It is clear that your sole purpose is to decieve instead of enlighten people.Clyde Winters 22:44, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Stop Editing Olmec Epigraphy Section
Manus You claim that the corrections to the Epigraphic section of Olmec alternative views is self promotion this is false. These changes were made in response to the elimination of the discussion of Leo Wiener's statement in support of a Mande origin for the Tuxtla statuette. Please explain how the piece is self promotion when its aim is to indicate the ancient origin of the Vai script, and the fact that earlier researchers noted an African origin for Mexican scripts.Clyde Winters (talk) 04:26, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Vai script
The Vai syllabary was invented in 1833 by Mɔmɔlu Duwalu Bukɛlɛ. Stop with this nonsense about the Fuente Bowl being written in Vai script and the Olmecs being Africans. Did the Vai invent the time machine, too? The Olmec writings are thousands of years older than this Vai script. You are only spreading ignorance about African history and culture, and taking away the history of the Olmecs and other Native American peoples. 67.39.204.95 (talk) 22:15, 23 February 2009 (UTC)