It doesn't even need to be stylized tbh. If the man that statue resembles had black skin and curly hair he'd be considered black. If he had brown skin and straight hair then he wouldn't. The facial features alone are not enough to determine his race.

They ARE NOT stylized, that's my point. They are realistic depictions.

Yes, they are. The features are clearly Negroid.

Negroid [ˈniːgrɔɪd]
adj
(Social Science / Peoples) denoting, relating to, or belonging to one of the major racial groups of mankind, characterized by brown-black skin, tightly-curled hair, a short nose, and full lips. This group includes the indigenous peoples of Africa south of the Sahara, their descendants elsewhere, and some Melanesian peoples.

Negroid - definition of Negroid by the Free Online Dictionary, Thesaurus and Encyclopedia.

In fact, I lean toward the Olmecs being--a Samoan/Melansian people from the South Seas.

I NEVER said they were African. Do some research on Negroid peoples.

Since the skin and hair are not depicted, I can only assume that what you're saying is that only black people have wide short noses and full lips. In which case you'd be wrong.

http://i46.tinypic.com/2roqsk2.jpg
http://i49.tinypic.com/o870qc.jpg

Errrr...I'm not sure what your point is here. These people are classified as NEGROID. Indians are NOT nor have they EVER been a single race. Some are Caucasoid, some are Mongoloid and some are Negroid. These are Negroid. That means they are NOT descended from the same people as the ones we classify as Caucasoid or Mongoloid. They have a different origin. I believe that origin is the South Seas.

http://usa.ntm.org/content/component...mg_595x300.jpg
The Ache tribe of Paraguay are classified as Caucasoid. They are clearly not the same people depicted in the Olmec heads.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...can_Indian.png
Eskimos, Inuits and Aleuts are classified as Mongoloid. Clearly they do not resemble the Olmec heads. They are not even considered Indians.

http://i44.tinypic.com/qnahsh.jpg
Mexican Indian classified as Negroid. She could certainly be descended from the Olmecs.

http://i.images.cdn.fotopedia.com/fl...es-image-4.jpg
Australoids who bear a genetic kinship with a branch of Dravidians from India.

http://robertlindsay.files.wordpress...australoid.jpg
Dravidian from India classified as Negroid.

http://www.vanuatu-photos.com/the%20...p_villager.jpg
Melanesian man.

http://www.rugby365.com/uploads/imag...Samoa-sivi.jpg
Samoan men. Samoans are believed to have originated in Southeast Asia.

Since Polynesian peoples occupy Easter Island, their migration to the New World is not at all wild speculation. If they keep going east, they'd hit South America. There is no reason to believe they didn't keep going. I believe the Olmecs were these people or descended from these people or descended from common ancestors or interbred with these people. Their descendants are found all over North America, Mexico, South and Central America today. But they were originally Negroid people from the South Seas.

The sweet potato is native to the Americas but was found by Europeans in the South Seas and it is believed that it arrived there about 700 AD. It is untenable that it could have floated there on ocean currents. In fact, the word for sweet potato is similar between Polynesian groups and South American Indians as is the word for stone axe.

Two studies have shown certain American Indian genetic strains are also found on Easter Island and that this occurred prior to Columbus.

Just found this. Quite interesting.

Ancient Americas cultural and Racial Affinities with Africa

Few points...

1. I'm pretty sure "negroid" and "negro" are outdated terms and are considered offensive.
2. The people I posted don't meet your own definition of "negroid." They fit only 2 of the 4 criteria.
3. You started out making the argument that the statues were of black men, and now you're shifting the goal posts to include present day South Americans who are not black in an umbrella group.
4. Different racial characteristics among different groups of natives does not establish that they migrated from a different part of the old world. Racial characteristics evolve just like anything else. An analysis of their DNA would do a better job at establishing that.

Firstly, who cares? Secondly, "Negroid" is the proper scientific term as is "Caucasoid" and "Mongoloid."

I'll give you that simply because it doesn't make a bit of difference. Obviously, there's been a lot of interbreeding going on between now and the time the Olmec heads were carved so other racial traits are bound to show up sooner or later.

See my above remark.

Evolution requires far longer lengths of time generally. Analysis of DNA helps but is not the final word. Analysis of blood groups yield up just as much information. Customs and language similarities are often even better indicators because they can pin down just when contact between two groups took place.

I thought that type of classification was outdated. Either way, those groups are arbitrary at best.

You're assuming they 'lost' the other traits due to interbreeding. It's just as likely that they never had them.

When you're dealing with people migrating to vastly different environments (arctic vs desert vs jungle etc) then there's no reason why basic facial features and skin tones couldn't diverge in 10,000 years. The short flat nose depicted would correspond perfectly with the hot, tropical environment the Olmecs lived in. It's not even really a 'negroid' feature, as there are black populations that don't live in the tropics which have longer noses.

As for making contact, I am perfectly open to the idea that Polynesians did make contact before Columbus. This was when... like 500 AD? Like 1500 years too late to have seeded the Olmec civilization?

Lord Larehip you are a negroid mongoloid.