Could the first New World civilization have been of Chinese origin?

According to archeologists, The Olmecs, one of the earliest native American civilizations, appeared on the Central American scene quite suddenly about 1100 B.C. So suddenly, in fact, that a few unorthodox scholars have looked at the cultural and artistic similarities between the Olmecs and the Shang Dynasty of ancient China (1766-1122 B.C.) and suggested that the Olmec civilization was not indigenous but of Chinese origins. The notion has been scorned by mainstream scholars, naturally, since the the evidence for such an outrageous claim has been clearly wanting. Until now.

Mike Xu, a professor of foreign languages and Chinese history at the University of Central Oklahoma, has got the evidence in writing -- literally. On various Olmec jade celts, statues, and pottery, Xu found more than one hundred Shang inscriptions for "sun," "rain," "water," "worship," "sacrifice," "wealth," "land," "mountain," and "plants." And he's combined this startling linguistic evidence with new developments in Shang studies in China to put together a plausible picture of the Chinese origins of Olmec civilization. It turns out that when the last Shang king was defeated and killed by rivals in 1122 B.C., his loyalists were forced to flee to the "East Ocean" or Pacific, notes Xu in his new book, Origin of the Olmec Civilization (University of Central Oklahoma Press, 1996). "Olmec civilization suddenly emerged around or immediately after the Shang's fall," he writes. "Was it just coincidence? Or is it possible that part of those 25,000 refugees from ancient China ended up in the New World?"

Numerous notable Chinese scholars have confirmed Xu's readings of the Olmec inscriptions, including Han Ping Chen, a scholar of ancient Chinese from the Historical Research Institute at the China Social Science Academy. After examining 146 characters and symbols from the Olmec culture, Chen reported: "These symbols, if found or excavated in China (except rock art and carving), would certainly be regarded as prehistoric Chinese characters or symbols. Of 146 symbols, many are 100 percent identical to ancient Chinese characters. Some, I am afraid, can be easily recognized by Chinese first graders in elementary schools..."

But the critics will have none of this Chinese origin stuff -- no matter what the evidence. In a story appearing in US News and World Report, William Boltz of the University of Washington and Robert Bagley of Princeton dismissed as "rubbish" the notion that the characters could be Chinese. The criticism infuriates Xu -- and rightly so, we might add. "Most experts in Olmec studies do not have any idea about ancient Chinese writings and Asian cultures or tradition," says Xu, who was educated in both China and the United States. "How on Earth could they comment on top Chinese scholars reading Chinese as 'rubbish'?" Zing!

-- Patrick Huyghe