Talk:Olmec figurine

The following sentences were edited out of the original version of this article, since I do not believe they are supported by the facts, or take a very narrow view of matters:

"The first figurine was found in the archaeological site of Tlapacoya and was dated around 2300 BC. The discovery of figurines marked the beginning of Mesoamerican art. The Olmec civilization began to flourish at the same time. Tlapacoya and Tlatilco both in the Valley of Mexico, and Las Bocas in Puebla are sites where figurines were abundant. "

The 2300 BCE date is one of the very earliest proposed and I believe it is unsupported. And while there have been Olmec (or Olmec-influenced) figurines) found at these sites, but I don't believe that these are the major sources of figurines.Madman 16:24, 22 January 2006 (UTC)Reply

Where are the pictures of female figurines? Why were they left out? What would be your purpose in showing only male figurines for this culture? Are the authors simply unaware that the Olmecs made female figurines? Is there some other reason they're not shown here? Athana 21:48, 7 January 2007 (UTC)Reply

I don't see any evidence in support of the rhetorical charge that there's been any purposeful omission or editing out of female depictions. Please don't presume there has been any conscious or unconscious decision to do so. Like just about any other wikipedia article around this one has developed organically from the efforts of disparate editors over time.

The main problem with images is a common one- free-use licence images of Olmec figurines (of whatever description) are rather hard to come by, and we are lucky to have even those few which illustrate this article. If you happen to know of any free-license images of Olmec artefacts displaying female characteristics, then you'd be most welcome to add them in.

Also, as noted in my response at talk:Olmec mythology there's really too little known about the conventions of Olmec iconography to securely identify the gender of the beings depicted in Olmec art and statuary, and most such artefacts are quite indeterminate as regards to gender. While there certainly are Olmec artefacts which some have identified as possessing female characteristics, only a minority can be said to be definitively accepted as female. And in (presumed) deity depictions and figurines, gender characteristics are almost completely lacking, most are anthropomorphic figures derived from animals (snakes, birds, sharks, etc) and not clearly either male or female.--cjllw | TALK 05:10, 8 January 2007 (UTC)Reply

Indeed, we'll take (just about) any appropriate photo but, as CJLL notes, the problem is that we can only use free-license images (in general). I was able to obtain an image of "the wrestler" (which is a very famous figurine) by way of a long correspondence with the DeLanges. The other figurine image was shot by a Wikipedian at the British Museum. Upload 'em if ya got 'em. Madman 04:35, 9 January 2007 (UTC)Reply

There are a bunch of broken links to Olmec figurines and art in this article. Most of them appear to have been links to images on academic library course reserve websites (several at UCSD) which are no longer active. In order to comply with copyright, most academic libraries take down such resources in semesters / quarters where the course in question is not being offered. Also, increasingly those materials are being limited to authenticated access from members of the academic community in question.

I corrected one or two of them (i.e. La Venta Offering #4) by inserting a new link I found with a Google Image search, but [a] there could be copyright issues (I doubt the La Venta Offering #4 image is authorized for use by the AOL user in question) and [b] I suspect these links will break again soon enough. Currently I don't have the time to track down legal links for all of them. Thus the note here. --Symmerhill (a.k.a. Summerhilll) (talk) 02:18, 28 June 2008 (UTC)Reply

I am not an expert in photoshop or photo editing at all, but when you zoom in all these statues have odd pixelated edges and make me wonder if these figures were not edited in or something: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Small_Olmec_Figurines_%28Met%29.jpg Zopwx2 (talk) 22:05, 28 January 2012 (UTC)Reply

Yes, as both the photographer and the editor of the photo, I can say that the photo is definitely real, with no additional figures photoshopped in or out. I did (rather clumsily it seems) turn up the brightness and contrast on a couple of figures to bring them out better. I can send you the original if you're interested. Madman (talk) 15:50, 29 January 2012 (UTC)Reply

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Olmec figurine. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060910134307/http://etd.lib.fsu.edu/theses/available/etd-07182004-012228/unrestricted/10_mbt_Appendix_A.pdf to http://etd.lib.fsu.edu/theses/available/etd-07182004-012228/unrestricted/10_mbt_Appendix_A.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:44, 10 December 2017 (UTC)Reply

Hi the text mentions possible artificial cranial deformation

There is also the picture with the elongated head:

 

And the picture with a baby/child wearing some headwear consisting of a band around the forehead, with a kind of scroll on top or front, and the band is held in place with straps under the chin:

 

I am obviously wondering if this is the device they used for cranial deformation: the strap prevents the tight band from sliding upwards, and the scroll like thing on top or front might be used to tighten the head band in small increments.

The child is also dressed very decoratively. Perhaps the upper class or priests or nobility had elongated heads, since any uprising would not be able to immediately replace them in way still compatible with their belief system. In order to cheat the system, you would have to use such a device on your own baby, but then you would have to go and survive in the wilderness for say 10 years or more, not a trivial feat for a sedantary society that is already specialized. If non-elites would try illegitimately give their children elongated heads within the society, you could be stopped by the ruling class.

I am not stating this as fact, just pure speculation, not an archeologist... it's just what I see when I look at the pictures and read the text.