Talk:Olmecs

GA Review

This discussion is transcluded from Talk:Olmec/GA1. This discussion is now closed as the article was withdrawn. Please do not edit the review page.

Intro

Hello, I have had a quick read through and will start the process within a day or so.Look forward to working with you all. Edmund Patrick – confer 18:13, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

GA First Review

Lead:

• ..."Their cultural influence, however, extends far beyond this region...." reads as if it still exists in present day? ..Their cultural influence, however, extened far beyond this region. If you mean it still does this needs to be made clearer.

I have changed the "extends" to "extended".

• ...The most familiar aspect of Olmec civilization is their artwork, particularly the aptly-named colossal heads.In fact, the Olmec civilization was first..two uses of the word "civilization"

I have dropped the 1st one.

Early history

• "...The rise of civilization here was probably assisted by the local ecology of"... seems an odd way of putting it. Are you saying that the group of people developed into a civilisation because of, or that a group of people were attracted to this area, settled and became ... because of ... I know one quite possibly leads to another!

The writer is saying "because of . . . " It's not your typical sentence, but I've always kinda liked it, in particular the alliteration of "local ecology of well-watered rich alluvial soil". I didn't write it, but I haven't changed it either. I believe that the article's next 2 sentences explain how the local environment boosted the civilization by comparing it with other early civilizations, and then supplying a this-leads-to-this-and-then-to-this step-thru.

• ...It is thought that the dense population concentration at San Lorenzo encouraged the rise of an elite class that eventually ensured Olmec dominance and provided the social basis for the production of the symbolic and sophisticated luxury artifacts that define Olmec culture.... a very important statement -- can it be referenced?

This has not only been referenced, but has been rewritten to make the matter clearer (at least I hope it's clearer).

• ...for example, is found in the Motagua River valley in eastern Guatemala and their obsidian was from sources in the Guatemala highlands, such as El Chayal and San Martin Jilotepeque or in Puebla. Can these have distances, terrain crossed or some example of the difficulties, skills required to obtain the artefacts so that the general reader can begin to get an idea of values / power / position of the owners.

I've added distances.

La Venta

• ...Environmental changes may have been responsible for this move, with certain important rivers changing course.... first part fine but if rivers changed can we have a reference please.

Reference provided.

• ."..lasting from 900 BCE until its abandonment around 400 BCE. During this period, the Great Pyramid and various other ceremonial complexes were built at La Venta...." can we have tighter dates to the buildings given rather than the approximate 500 years. if not the point is still valid, an amazing civilisation that created the following.

Let me check. If I remember, they have had difficulty dating the various structures.

(Later) Yes, there was only one dating sequence run there, and it won't really help. So, I took out this sentence and tried to give an idea of what actually defined La Venta. Hope you like it.

Decline

• "...This depopulation was likely the result of environmental changes: perhaps the result of important rivers changing course or silting up due to agricultural practices...." those rivers again ... and perhaps sounds like an editor thought! looking for an answer ... archaeologist believe / think... the evidence leads to the possibility that ... geophysicians have found possible evidence for...research leads to ...

I expanded this section, trying to explain more of what might have happened. I removed the word "perhaps".

Colossal heads

• ..."As no known pre-Columbian text explains these, these impressive monuments have been the subject of much speculation...." => "As no known pre-Columbian text explains these, the impressive monuments have been the subject of much speculation." Reads better I believe?

Yes, the ". . . these, these . . ." was not good. I have changed it to: "As no known pre-Columbian text explains them, these impressive monuments have been the subject of much speculation."

Beyond the heartland

• Quite a few heartlands in section, an another word / title be found to vary the language, without obviously loosing any meaning? In fact it would be good to have about three words and remove some of the heartlands from throughout the article.

"Olmec heartland" is a term used by archaeologists to describe a specific area, and there's a separate (if slight) article on the subject. I added a clause to clarify that and wikilinked the term (not sure why it wasn't). I nonetheless understand the problem associated with continuous repetion of a word, and removed 4 occurrences from the article. Hope this works.

Bloodletting and sacrifice

• ...Definitive answers will need to await further findings.... Any definitive answers will need to await further findings. hopefully reads better.

I have made the change suggested.

Mesoamerican ballgame

• "...indicates that even at this early date, the ballgame had religious and ritual connotations..." needs reference

After quite a bit of work here -- researching, writing, and rewriting -- I found the citation (Diehl, p. 27), but I also realized that we should not to go into a lot of detail on this particular matter (i.e. whether these deposits prove the ballgame had religious and ritual connotations at this early date). This is somewhat off-topic and should instead be covered in more depth in the Mesoamerican ballgame article (to which I added on this topic). So, I clarified that the discovery of balls does not prove that the Olmecs played the game, but it does indicate that they probably did. If this doesn't work for you, let me know.

Ethnicity and language

• ...Since the Mixe-Zoquean languages still are, and historically are known to ... since the Olmec culture is now generally regarded as the first "high culture" of Mesoamerica, it has generally been regarded as probable that the Olmec spoke a Mix...two since could the 2nd be replaced with and that

I have reworded that paragraph and added a bit more at the start of the section as well as 2 citations on the "scholars assume . . ." sentence. Maunus, a fellow Olmec editor, also added some material to clarify and which ties back to the earlier San Lorenzo => La Venta theme.

Religion and mythology

• ...The rulers were probably the most important religious figures, ... there are quite a few "probably" throughout the article, possible / possibly to me reads as within existing knowledge / research it is possible that... which to me is more positive and less judgmental than probably. Your thoughts dear editors?

I have changed the "were probably" to "seem to have been". In general, in these types of archaeological settings, I think that "probably"s are appropriate, as long as it's clear from the overall context &/or citation that the text speaks for verifiable mainstream scholarship opinions. In archaeology or history there are few statements that can be made with certainty, and adverbial qualifiers are standard issue. (verbiage partially plagiarized from User:CJLL Wright).

Social and political organization

• heartland again three times in this section, a variety IMHO is needed.

See discuss above.

This is my first read through, and although long does not mean I won't return to the same sections, but a lot of the above is as a new reader looking to this article for clarity and information. All in all an excellent article, and once again I have learnt something about a part of Mesoamerican culture I knew little about, and that surely is what it is all about. Edmund Patrick – confer 19:12, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Good ideas. I'll research these, make a few wording changes, add citations, and will be back in touch. Thanks, Madman (talk) 04:47, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Still working thru the list. Stay tuned. Madman (talk) 14:16, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Done, I think, with this round. Madman (talk) 04:02, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Looks good I will read through in the next 48 hours. Stirling work. Edmund Patrick – confer 20:28, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

GA second review

Art

• ...The Olmec culture was first defined as an art style, and it continues to be... The Olmec culture was first defined as an art style, and this continues to be.

Done.

• ...Rectangular "altars" (more likely thrones) such as Altar 5 shown above.... could not see it. found it below!

Fixed.

Village life and diet

• ...increasingly important to the Olmec diet over time, although the diet remained fairly diverse.......increasingly important to the Olmec diet over time, although the diet remained fairly diverse...

Done.

• Please have a look at the results from [1] suddenly quite a few weblinks seem to have closed!

Yes, they have. They all work now.

The article looks and reads well. A complex subject not yet totally understood part of history which this article informs and makes sense.Edmund Patrick – confer 19:37, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

GA second review

I've fixed the notes above. I'm in no hurry, so I'll await your return. Madman (talk) 02:01, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Hey there Madman. Just one minor suggestion I'd meant to make before now but hadn't got round- in the opening sentence of the lead, "The Olmec were an ancient Pre-Columbian people ...", I'd propose describing Olmec as a "culture", rather than a "people" (might have to recast the sentence, not just swap the words in/out). As a lot of the rest of the article indicates, what today is called 'Olmec' is known through an assemblage of archaeological remains and artefacts, & the ethnic/linguistic makeup of the folks who produced those archaeological culture remains is still under some debate. To me, "people" in that sentence implies a degree of ethnic/linguistic unity or self-identity, that we are not sure they really had. Does that make sense? Cheers, --cjllw ʘ TALK 14:32, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

I understand your concerns about the use of "people". It may have come from Encarta, which also describes the Olmec as a "people".

I'm not sure that the word "culture" fits here, though, since the article specifically describes the Olmec of the Gulf lowlands (as the 1st sentence says: "The Olmec were an ancient Pre-Columbian people living in the tropical lowlands of south-central Mexico,. . . "). While the article does mention other important Formative period sites in one specific section, the rest of the article analyzes sites, living patterns, and other archaeological evidence only within the heartland.

I would be happy with using "civilization" instead of "people". "Civilization" is a word that both Coe (America's First Civilization Discovering the Olmec) and Diehl (The Olmecs: America's First Civilization) used in the titles of their books. But this is not an article on "Olmec culture". That would be, to a greater or lesser extent, the Olmec influences on Mesoamerican cultures article.

Your thoughts?? Madman (talk) 17:49, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

We (archaeologists) are sloppy when we talk about "Olmec". At times we mean the people who inhabited the Gulf Coast sites, at times, we mean "Olmec" as an art style, and so on. This actually is an article about the Gulf Coast people who were Olmec. Culture fits. People works. Rsheptak (talk) 23:53, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes thanks Rus, that's partly what I was getting at. While a statement like "the Olmec were a Formative-era people in the Gulf Coast region" is not of itself incorrect, to my mind it doesn't quite capture the full story. "Civilization" would be a good alternative, meaning can overlap the archaeological culture that's been defined as Olmec, and the people(s) of the specific region and time where this culture was most prevalent.--cjllw ʘ TALK 01:15, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

I saw one thing in the article that concerned me a little bit, and partly its nit picking, but just when are you dating the start of the Olmec civilization? The article says 1400 BC, and I always thought it was 1200 BC, but at another point the article talks about 1600 BC Olmec materials from Laguna Manati. Generally, the 1600 BC date is considered to be pre-olmec, and probably it should be pointed out somewhere that there were people, and things going on, in the olmec heartland before the olmec, including at Laguna/Cerro Manati that were indicative of complexity; that olmec is an increment in complexity, not complexity grown out of nothing. Rsheptak (talk) 00:03, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

The reason that several dates appear is that, as you note, the development of the Olmec civilization was a gradual process. So Olmec-type artifacts appear at El Manati as early as 1600 BCE, but Olmec civilization has been bracketed as 1400 - 400 BCE (by Pool) and 1500 - 400 BCE (by Diehl). Pool and Diehl have authored the two most recent general books on the Olmec and so it's probably best to use their dates.

And don't even ask about radiocarbon vs. chronological years.

The fact that the Olmec didn't appear full-blown all-at-once is addressed, I hope, by the Olmec#Early_history section, which describes the rise of the civilization at San Lorenzo. Madman (talk) 02:54, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the posting Madman. I don't follow the olmec heartland archaeology myself except at conferences. I think there's widespread agreement on olmec style pottery beginning around 1400 BC with olmec "art" (whatever we want to call the iconography) and sculpture starting around 1200 BC. However, the inclusion of the earliest Laguna Manati materials as "Olmec" and their actual dating, is controversial.

BTW its always critical to know whether dates are in raw radiocarbon or calibrated years, expecially in this early timeframe where calibration can make a significant difference in the date.

Anyhow, all I meant to point out was that the discussion in the article didn't fully match the periodization in the article. Rsheptak (talk) 00:08, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Hey, I said don't ask about radiocarbon dating!!  : )

I guess I don't necessarily see a periodization mismatch in the article, but perhaps I'm too close to it. I do see that various experts diverge on their starting dates for various reasons, but the article reports on what they say rather than attempt a synthesis or spend a lot of "ink" trying to reconcile the differences. Personally, I think the dates are one the least important facts (or rather expert opinions) in the article, since the dates are fuzzy anyway (they are almost all based on radiocarbon dating which is often ±100 years). To me, 1400 BCE and 1500 BCE both fall under the heading of "long time ago in a place far far away" (with apologies to George Lucas).

In any case, I added to footnote #4 in the article explaining a bit more about why Olmec dates are problematic. Hope this helps, Madman (talk) 02:39, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Withdrawing GA nomination

I have run out of time to devote to citing the 46 {{fact}} tags added by the second reviewer, so I am withdrawing this article from nomination. Madman (talk) 04:18, 2 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[2] 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 [3], "[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.