Talk:Olmec alternative origin speculations

Jaredites and the American Mound Builders

I have made some improvements to the "Jaredite origins" section. It is important to point out that mainstream American History and Literature scholars classify the B of M in the “Mound-builder” literary genre. Theses experts do not see anything in the written work that clearly defines a Mesoamerican setting. Onondaga (talk) 01:32, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Onondaga, I made a slight adjustment in the section to the "mound builder (people)" link. Pointing out the accepted literary setting for the Book of Mormon is spot on!! Kovesh (talk) 16:29, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

I fixed the " Mound Builder" link. Thanks. Onondaga (talk) 17:40, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Facial features

Perhaps it should be mentioned that a lot of the representations are in monochrome. The indigenous inhabitants of this part of the world tend to have flattened noses, and slightly Oriental eyes, even today. DNA testing's probably the answer here.--MacRùsgail (talk) 16:36, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Hence the section Olmec_alternative_origin_speculations#Genetic_evidence. Paul B (talk) 17:19, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

I'm well aware of that, but I'm mainly talking of the question of facial features. Some of the "Chinese" and "African" features of the statues can still be seen in indigenous folk in Central America.--MacRùsgail (talk) 14:23, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Yes, epicanthic folds are pretty common in Native Americans - who are, after all, descendants of migrants from Asia, so no surprise. And even Bushmen have epicanthic folds. Proves nothing unusual. Nor does the picture I saw of a Filipino who looked very much like an Olmec head (except of course he had a body and a head to scale). Dougweller (talk) 14:50, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Realities of Sculpture?

I have discussed this with people over the years as an ex art teacher and I am surprised no one has addressed the fact that these are carvings - which dictates some aspects of how the stones look. As such they are 'subtractive' works, meaning that you remove stone in order to create the image. If you take a large stone formation as a starting point and want to create a face you would need to carve into the stone to 'reveal' the form... Now the significant thing about the Olmec stones is the 'flattened nose' that is attributed to african facial features, which if you were carving an image for someone with a long nose would mean considerably more carving in order to remove more stone, as you cannot glue the nose on, it must be no longer than the stone's original surface. If the carver of the stone wanted to create a representation of a face, possibly even a likeness to a particular individual, it is not actually necessary to carve so deep, even if the face you want to represent has a longer nose (as more probably would have been the case). If one looks at examples of bass relief carvings they rarely have a full '3D' likeness but instead rely on the play of light over the surface to suggest highlights and shadows which are strong enough to create the feeling of depth in the viewers mind. I would argue that these carvings therefore work with both of these elements - specifically that they only carved enough to create an image which, in appropriate lighting, presented a likeness when viewed from the front. It was not intended to be 'seen' from all angles as an accurate representation of the face, merely that the natural lighting would create the likeness... Viewed from the side these faces are practically flat, following the form of the stone. So the perception that this feature of 'flat noses' appears 'african' is probably a modern error on our part in interpreting the work. Furthermore the idea of creating perfect likenesses of individuals is a relatively modern phenomenon in art around the world. Portrayals of historic and legendary characters in many cultures have involved a few realistic representations (Egyptian art for example, contains a few sculptures that are quite 'naturalistic'), but for the most part many cultures have more abstract interpretations of the human form - this could be more true if one consider that the pieces may not represent humans but gods/spirits perhaps. There is no reason to believe that the Olmec stones were attempting to create a perfect 'racial' likeness to a particular group of people. They do have in common a stylised facial form, which under the limitations of stone carving outlined above, seem to have created a particular common form which to modern eyes appears 'african' (although presumably west african rather than Eritrean for example). We cannot presume that this stylisation represents an actual intended likeness to individual humans. Now i applaud the wikipedia community for maintaining quality and objectivity, so I do not expect to see my words here reproduced in the article as I cannot cite any sources etc, as this is not a field where I have any expertise beyond my education and experience in art. But I would would ask that this is kept in the 'talk' section as a seed of thought/inquiry for others. i urge anyone working on this subject or maintaining the content of this page to look into this aspect of the Olmec stones further - as currently the page, like the subject itself, is awash with fantasist nonsense.