The following post was originally written in response to comments made on the newsgroup sci.archaeology.mesoamerican concerning the Olmecs. Assertions had been made that the Olmecs were the "First Americans" and were descended from Africans. The evidence for these assertions included "negroid" facial features and curly hair on the Olmec colossal heads... ----------------------- I don't want to spend a lot of time dealing with the same debate that has dominated this newsgroup for so long, but a few "facts" must be corrected. 1) The first americans were Asians, not Africans. They arrived via the land bridge between North America and Asia at a point in time that is justifiably under debate right now. Such phenotypic traits as the epicanthic folds depicted in Olmec colossal heads seem to substantiate the fact that the Olmec people were descendants of those earlier cultures that crossed from Asia. There is also growing archaeological evidence tracing the evolution of Olmec material culture from their cultural antecedents during the Archaic period to their florescence in the Formative Period. What we are debating when we discuss the rise of the Olmecs is not the peopling of the Americas, but the rise of complex society (something beyond an egalitarian hamlet) in Mesoamerica. 2) Describing the Olmec colossal heads as "negroid", as many scholars have, is a subjective statement. The fact is that without the artistic interpretation of the collosal heads, there is no evidence of contact between Africans and Mesoamericans in the formative period (or any other period up until the conquest, but that is beyond the scope of this discussion). And yes, there are Native Americans with facial features like the Olmec heads. Plate 1 of "Mexico South: the Isthmus of Tehuantepec" by Miguel Covarrubias includes a picture of a person indigenous to the Gulf Coast next to a picture of a colossal head. These features are seen among many local populations, as has been stated by those who work there. 3) Some participants on this newsgroup have made a good point about the dangers of equating an archaeological culture with a race. But note that when Follensbee mentioned that there was ample evidence that the carvings were made by Native Americans and for Native Americans, she was absolutely correct. The ceramic evidence may not tell us what language a population spoke, or whether they were racially different than any other. But the ceramic evidence, stratigraphic evidence, and even the interpretation of their symbols and art, have proven that the people who carved the colossal heads were the same people who had been living in or near the region for centuries. 4) I would agree with some participants in this discussion that the argument concerning straight or curly hair on the colossal heads is ridiculous, but for different reasons. I simply believe establishing a culture's race based on the appearance of their hair in a sculpture is as tenuous as basing it on the appearance of their nose, lips or eyes. The archaeological data has much more to say on this issue than any one trait on a sculpture. 5) Some scholars used to think that the Olmec were the "Mother Culture" of Mesoamerica because the art styles of later cultures such as the Maya seem to have had their roots in the Early Formative/Preclassic period. This concept has undergone radical change recently. In 1989 the top Olmec specialists got together and published "Regional Perspectives on the Olmec" (Sharer and Grove, Cambridge University Press). This volume represented a change in ideology concerning the "mother culture". It discussed how MANY areas of Mesoamerica developed simultaneously, with different regions making different technological and social innovations. Lime plaster was earliest in Oaxaca (it would eventually revolutionize Mesoamerican architecture), temple mounds may be earliest on the Pacific Coast (see Gareth Lowe's work at the site of Paso de Amada), and the Gulf Coast (the only area which should be given the term "Olmec") can boast its grand monolithic carvings. No one culture can any longer be called a "mother culture" in Mesoamerica. Some scholars will still use the term "mother culture" when describing the Olmec, but they will generally be refering to the impact of the horizon-style of "Olmec" art. Traces of this art style can be found from highland central Mexico to Honduras and El Salvador during the Early and Middle Formative/Preclassic periods. I would encourage everyone interested in this debate to first read up on the current status of Olmec archaeology before coming up with theories on their own. The Sharer and Grove volume is invaluable in this respect. Flannery and Marcus's concluding chapter of "Early Formative Pottery from the Valley of Oaxaca" is also short, easy to read and very up-to-date. These and other bibliographic references are listed below. When reading the earlier works, simply keep in mind that the archaeological record concerning the Olmecs has grown considerably within the past few years. With Rebecca Gonzalez Lauck's work at La Venta, and Ann Cyphers' work at San Lorenzo, we can look forward to much more revealing volumes on the current state of Olmec research in the near future. David R. Hixson Dept. of Anthropology Public Service Archaeology Program University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign dhixson@staff.uiuc.edu Benson, Elizabeth P. (ed.) 1968 Dumbarton Oaks Conference on the Olmec. Dumbarton Oaks, Washington D.C. 1981 The Olmec and Their Neighbors: Essays in memory of Matthew W. Stirling. Dumbarton Oaks, Washington D.C. Bernal, Ignacio 1969 The Olmec World. University of California Press, Berkeley. Coe, Michael D. 1968 America's First Civilization: Discovering the Olmec. American Heritage Publishing Co., New York. Coe, Michael D. and Richard A. Diehl 1980 In the Land of the Olmec. University of Texas Press (2 vols.), Austin. Covarrubias, Miguel 1957 Indian art of Mexico and Central America. Alfred A. Knopf, New York. Flannery, Kent V. and Joyce Marcus 1994 Early Formative Pottery from the Valley of Oaxaca. Memoirs of the Museum of Anthropology no. 27, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor. Grove, David C. 1997 "Olmec Archaeology: A Half-Century of Research and its Accomplishments." Journal of World Archaeology 11 (1). (March 1997) 1987 Ancient Chalcatzingo. University of Texas Press, Austin. 1984 Chalcatzingo: Excavations on the Olmec Frontier. Thames and Hudson, New York and London. Piña Chan, Roman 1989 The Olmec: Mother Culture of Mesoamerica. Rizzoli, New York. Sharer, Robert and David C. Grove (eds.) 1989 Regional Perspectives on the Olmec. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. Wicke, Charles R. 1971 Olmec: An Early Art Style in Precolumbian Mexico. University of Arizona Press, Tucson. Various Authors 1995 Los Olmecas (Spanish version), Arqueología Mexicana, vol. II, núm. 12, March-April. Editorial Raíces, México. 1996 Olmecs (English version), Arqueología Mexicana, Special Edition. Editorial Raíces, México.