Olmec iconography = Shang Script. No, only wishfull thinking. ________________________________________________________________ I have followed the recent Shang-Olmec postings with a great deal of interest and amusement. Anyone familiar with Kent Reilly's work on Olmec iconography and Cosmology? We are lucky to have him on our faculty and so have access to superb photographs (even some of the original stuff) of many of the Olmec artifacts that have been tossed around in this debate. It is clear when you look at these that what has been interpreted as script are actually incised designs that are common on a variety of things Olmec. The script interpretation derives from poor photographs or incomplete drawings. You all can argue with Kent as to whether you agree with his cosmological interpretations of the designs, but script- no way. Jon McGee Anthropology, Southwest Texas State U. ________________________________ Some asked me to post my observations re: the script on the Olmec celts identified by Chen, Hanping as Chinese in US News & World Report Nov. 4, pp. 46-8. I have finally seen the article with the reproduction of the Olmec graphs and the section that Chen believed was similar to the oracle bone script of the Shang. 1. the graphs isolated by Chen are not Chinese. They bear some graphic similarity to some archaic Chinese graphs or parts of graphs but as single graphs equal nothing and do not have the equivalents he assigned to them. It is bogus. 2. obviously, the graphs/glyphs pulled out by Chen should be considered within the context of the entire "inscription." This is impossible as the rest of the marks bear none but a few isolated similarities. In fact, the Olmec "script" may not represent language at all, but like the Naxi and other ur-scripts, be more a code for storytelling than an actual transcription of language. The Shang oracle bone script, on the other hand, is very advanced and unquestionably qualifies as belonging to a writing system. 3. finally, the "inscription" must be considered within the context of the sculptures. there is very little beyond an occasional face of human representation in Shang period art (some carved jade figures, but these are kneeling, often incised, and covered with animal decor, tatoos, clothes, etc.). One famous bronze has a shaman like figure in the mouth of an animal, but there is no similarity to the Olmec representations. The only set of free standing statues I know about belong to the neolithic Hongshan culture discovered in the northern borderlands of present day China...separated from the Shang by thousands of years and from the Shang "homeland" by hundreds of miles (and certainly not "Chinese"). These naked sculptures are female, some pregnant, and do not have the tall malformed cranium. They were found in a temple/mortuary complex. There was no evidence of any script. (for articles in English see works by Elizabeth Childs-Johnson or Tong, Eng-sheng). 4. a point of correction: the US News & WR article claims that Chen is the foremost authority of only about 12 scholars worldwide who are trained in ancient script (podunck Lehigh Univ. has two!). First, Chen is a very minor scholar. Second, there are more than 12 scholars in the US alone who can read Shang script, many many more in China and elsewhere. There is a leading authority on Shang script visiting Dartmouth college right now: Qi, Wenxin. If you are at UBC, talk to Ken Takashima in Asian Studies. C. Cook, Assoc. Prof. of Chinese Lehigh Univ. _____________________________ I thought it might be useful to re-post this as the debate seems to be getting farther and farther away from Dr. Chen's actual claims. He is talking about very well-known and well-studied objects, and there is a wealth of interpretation within the field about the iconography on the celts. As a participant has mentioned via Randall Allison, Kent Reilly has done a lot of work on this subject - it's a shame the US News article didn't report what the prevailing interpretation is within the hermetically sealed environment of Olmec studies ;). If you don't have any luck tracking down the references, you can also try _Olmec Art of Ancient Mexico_, the new catalogue from the National Gallery of Art. La Venta Offering #4 is cat. no. 42. Matthew Howard Robb wrote: > > The article > specifically refers to La Venta Offering 4, which is ca. 600 - 400 B.C. > LV Offering # 4 was excavated in the late 50s. If you look at the > incisions on 4 of the celts from the offering (and there are only 4 > incised), there are motifs that are well within the range of Olmec > iconography. > One of the celts was split in half in Olmec times; when doubled, it > clearly depicts an Olmec "were-jaguar" or infant supernatural. Two of > the others can be "joined" and then you see a "Flyer," or human figure > wearing a cape, kilt, and headdress holding out a staff or "torch" in > front of him. P. Joralemon and Kent Reilly, among others, have done the > work that made these insights possible (they probably have both > published this info, but I don't have all the citations here). Both of > these celts feature well-defined sets of Olmec motifs occurring on > greenstone celts from all over Mesoamerica in this time period (I don 't > recall what's on the fourth, but I, for one, doubt it's Shang Chinese). > Try: > Philip H. Drucker, Rober Heizer, and Robert Squier, "Excavations at La > Venta, Tabasco, 1955" _ Bureau of American Ethnology Bulletin 170_, 1959 > for the pictures. They are not what I would call widely available, so > you might also try: > Peter D. Joralemon, " A Study of Olmec Iconography" _Studies in > Pre-Columbian Art & Archaeology no. 7_ (Washington D.C., Dumbarton > Oaks) 1971. > Matthew Robb