The mysterious Olmec civilization of Mexico has long been a favorite topic for those who believe that the original founders crossed the ocean to America centuries before Columbus (for convenience I shall call these people diffusionists, their opponents non-diffusionists). Most professional scholars (non-diffusionists) date the Olmecs roughly from about 1500 B.C., when the main sites began to be built, to 400/200 B.C. The influence of the Olmecs on the religion, art, and architecture of Mesoamerican civilization is well established. However, when it comes to the question of origins the proliferation of theories staggers the imagination.
G. D. Matlock tries to prove the Olmecs were originally Hindus from India. Around 1800, as Matlock correctly points out, William Jones discovered the similarity between Sanskrit, Greek, and other languages. Quite true, but then Matlock states in the 1900’s certain (unidentified) Mexican scholars noted that the Nahuatl language is derived from Sanskrit. This is the first major error. Sanskrit and Nahuatl belong to completely different language families and are not remotely related.
As part of his argument Matlock attempts to establish a linguistic connection between Hindu Sanskrit and the Olmec language, which was probably a Mixe-Zoquean language. But for some strange reason, he begins with Nahuatl, which is a Uto-Aztecan language. This diffusionist writer seems to think, all he has to do to establish a connection is to pick a few words from each language and change a few syllables here and there to get the desired result. He therefore attempts to derive the Nahuatl word Nahua from the Sanskrit word nava or navaja, (nine or new). But in Classical Nahuatl the sound W was represented by U, V or HU. There was no V sound. In Sanskrit, however, V is pronounced as in English. Here, Matlock appears to be trying to force the pronunciation nawa out of navaor navaja, simply by interchanging the syllables V and W in order to associate Hindu Sanskrit with Aztec Nahuatl.
Matlock then jumps from Nahuatl (Classical Aztec) to the Olmecs, who, he says, probably could pronounce R only as L. He then proceeds with a similar spurious linguistic analysis. He cites the words Ma-gu, Mo-gul or Ul-mag (ancient Indian wise men), also called Eu-lama or Eu-rama, depending on the ability of different tribes to pronounce R or L. They were also called Ul-man, Olman, or Ul-manu. When the non-African races left India the Ul-mags continued to call themselves Alleman etc.....and Olman, Ulmak or Olmek, in ancient Mexico. Thus, by declaring syllables interchangeable Matlock gradually changes the form of the words until he gets the one he wants.
Arguments about the origin of the ancient Olmecs based on the name Olmec are doomed to failure. The name, Olmec comes from Omecatl (Dweller in the land of rubber), a name given by the Aztecs. We have no idea what the ancient Olmecs called themselves. As for the Olmec language, we have only a few inscriptions, the correct decipherment of which is bitterly disputed at present.
The linguistic argument here is based on false premises. First, Matlock praises William Jones for establishing the linguistic-historical connection between India and Greece. Then, he claims historical linguistics is a pseudoscience because it states that words that sound alike and have similar meanings do not necessarily prove that the languages are historically related. Mr. Matlock is apparently unaware that William Jones is universally regarded as the founder of historical linguistics.
Historical linguists, according to Matlock, have done a great disservice to historians and archaeologists (presumably diffusionists like himself) by claiming that Mesoamerican cultures, such as the Olmec, developed independently of the Old World. In so doing, he says, historical linguists have pleased the noble savages, (i.e. those self-deluded native Indians, who think their ancestors built the pyramids etc). Matlock complains that diffusionists were labeled racist because they wanted to discredit the noble savages. He then goes on to say that not all of the noble savages side with the non-diffusionists. Some were so upset at being excluded from the rest of the human race that many turned to drink and perdition. Racial slurs by racists are not uncommon in this field.
In presenting his case for the Hindu origins of the Olmecs, Matlock ignores all evidence to the contrary, misuses historical linguistics, and makes unsubstantiated claims. Diffusionists often complain professional academics do not take them seriously. A close look at some of their writings reveals why.
