<HTML>To be fair, however, the peopling of the Americas is a more complicated subject than the simplified versions in those Mesoamerican articles imply. It is logically flawed to compare the Olmec features to the Inuit, since the Inuit are a late migration into North America, displacing the then-indigenous Dorset peoples c. AD 1000.
Current theory holds that waves of migration led to the settling of the New World, starting around 30,000 BC, if finds in South America's Monte Verde site can be trusted. (My anthro professor worked on it, so I'm sure it can be.) Afterwards, migrations continued until AD 1000. [see Brian Fagan's "Ancient North America"] Also, new theories reject the land-bridge hypothesis and postulate that America was populated by sailors sliding down the Ice Age coasts, now underwater.
All of this is a long-winded way of saying that American prehistory is longer and more complex than either Hancock or many popularizers of science make it seem.
By the way, the Olmec Heads never looked African to me. I always thought they looked vaguely like Sumo wrestlers!
Jason</HTML>
