The Incas, explorers of the Pacific

[Harsh86_Patel]

LOL. so I was fooled.

Thanks everyone.

Tarry a while before you decide.

[Harsh86_Patel]

The restoration job here looks botched up ... I wish they'll just leave things alone and leave it to the professional restorers.

That thing just looks sad ....

[Harsh86_Patel]

The eye and the apparently pigmented ear are seperate.

Other Macaw motifs in Mayan art.

Four main points that stand out:

1. The eye and the ear are differently and clearly depicted with a long elongated trunk.

2. The size of the people sitting around the head clearly indicate a large head like that of an elephant.

3. No other comparable Macaw motif is observed in mayan art.

4. The pattern at the side of the trunk looks comparable to tusks.

[Harsh86_Patel]

I feel the pattern at the side of the trunk is actually on the tusk.You can see how the tusk is protruding

And please those who think this motif is closer to being a macaw then an elephant please look at actual macaws more closely.

[The_Spartan]

AS IF..he can negate all the efforts and expertise of those who spend ages and ages of field works and education.

A goddamn armchair Psuedo-whatever-ian!~! Ba Humbug!!!

[SHaYap]

Well I can't deny I see an elephant, whether it is or not initially as sculpted, I can't say.

But these guys knows their stone sculptures, I'll give it a benefit of a doubt if based solely on the renowned and undeniable skills of these ancient men of the arts.

What's the big deal anyways ? Humans been painting pachyderms since the days of 'holy' caves/mountains.

@Harsh86_Patel

that's an Asian though not a pygmy .... pygmies are waaay nicer

but they're more dangerous because they can chase you around trees being smaller but big enough to trample you to a pulp

~edit : dang 'T' key

Edited April 26, 2013 by third_eye

[cormac mac airt]

Well I can't deny I see an elephant, whether it is or not initially as sculpted, I can't say.

But these guys knows their stone sculptures, I'll give it a benefit of a doubt if based solely on the renowned and undeniable skills of these ancient men of the arts.

What's the big deal anyways ? Humans been painting pachyderms since the days of 'holy' caves/mountains.

@Harsh86_Patel

that's an Asian though not a pygmy .... pygmies are waaay nicer

but they're more dangerous because they can chase you around trees being smaller but big enough to trample you to a pulp

~edit : dang 'T' key

It's rather unlikely one would paint a picture/create a sculpture of an animal that hasn't existed since the end of the last glacial period.

cormac

[SHaYap]

It's rather unlikely one would paint a picture/create a sculpture of an animal that hasn't existed since the end of the last glacial period.

cormac

not from visual inspiration perhaps, but evidently here its an insinuating element of the 'trunk'

they might have some sort of stories of such a legendary creature that carries that distinct identity, a glorified 'tapir' perhaps ?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/South_American_tapir

[cormac mac airt]

not from visual inspiration perhaps, but evidently here its an insinuating element of the 'trunk'

they might have some sort of stories of such a legendary creature that carries that distinct identity, a glorified 'tapir' perhaps ?

http://en.wikipedia...._American_tapir

The downside to this idea is that 1) tapirs don't have long trunks and 2) one has to completely ignore the actual text written on Stela B which does, indeed, associate the king with being "Lord of the Macaw Mountain":

Stela B. Celebrating the 9.15.0.0.0 period ending, Waxaklajuun Ub'aah K'awiil is depicted here using the typical Copan "turban", while his bicephalic ceremonial bar emits two tiny images of the rain deity Chaak. It has been suggested that this is due to the fact that, on 9.15.0.0.0, Venus was at its maximum elongation in the area of the sky that corresponds to our constellation Virgo, which the Maya saw as associated with Chaak. Aside from talking about the monument's erection, Stela B's text specifically mentions that the monument was meant to display the king as the Lord of the Macaw Mountain, which may have been either a real or mythical place associated with Copan.

http://www.mesoweb.com/copan/tour/24.html

cormac

[SHaYap]

The downside to this idea is that 1) tapirs don't have long trunks and 2) one has to completely ignore the actual text written on Stela B which does, indeed, associate the king with being "Lord of the Macaw Mountain":

cormac

That's the point of separation isn't it ?

If they get the interpretation of the 'image' off course then they are allowed to question other interpretations, I know their ways, here they got a toe hold, I don't begrudge them.

Anyways, I think the fringees have gone on to greener pastures....

[Abramelin]

I feel the pattern at the side of the trunk is actually on the tusk.You can see how the tusk is protruding

And please those who think this motif is closer to being a macaw then an elephant please look at actual macaws more closely.

That looks more like it.

If this is a macaw, I'll eat my shoes.

These are macaws as depicted by the Maya:

http://www.wilderuto...-forces-of-awe/

http://wildbirdsbroa...01_archive.html

.

Edited April 26, 2013 by Abramelin

[Abramelin]

Isn't it obvious.

Who put out english/spanish translations of the native sources first?

Who exploited these people and continue to propound their versions of the same texts for centuries?

Now when we read these sources, they have already been propounded as the correct version for centuries. I belive there must have been a lot of distortion some intentional and some unintentional done by the early Spanish.

Foe eg- the Human sacrifice issue was blown up and given as a proof of these people being barbaric and demonic and was used to almost exterminate them by the conquestedors. I don't think these early spanish looters would have had the right intellectual capability and frame of mind to report correct versions of the actual cultural practices and their significance prevalent in those times ignoring their personal bais and supremacist mentality.

No, it isn't as obvious as you think. You seem to forget not everything got wiped from the plate by the conquistadores, and some traditions are still alive. But you'll have to travel to remote areas in Peru, Bolivia, Ecuador and Chile.

They have found proof of human (child) sacrifice. Nowadays they use llama fetuses for the same purpose.

Oh, and btw: not all the chroniclers were conquistadores and looters.

[Abramelin]

Abe peoples/traditions from India may have migrated to south east Asia and from there on to South America through polynesia.

Now there are two possibilities according to me, the people actually migrated from India or the traditions were passed on and were carried across.

The genetic data will be relevant only once we can determine when such a migration happened, if it happened say in 12000 BC when the global population was relatively low and an entire tribe decided to leave a particular geographic location and move to another for whatever reason, then the particular geneitc traits carried by the tribe will dissappear from location A and appear at the Destination location B. When we would try to analyse current gentic data, it would seem to us that the two peoples i.e the ones still found in location A but of a different tribe and the ones found in Location B are not genetically related.I would be vary of the migrations hypothesis based on Gentic data alone for the same reason.

A genetic link would not be necessary if only the tradition and culture was propogated. For example the ramayan is known almost throughout south east Asia, and there are variations observed.

12,000 BCE, that's a bit far back for traditions and images to look similar on both sides of the Pacific.

So I say that IF one people influenced the other across the Pacific, it must have happened much later, say 2000 years ago.

And in that case we sure should find clear genetic links, be it with India or SE Asia.

.

Edited April 26, 2013 by Abramelin

[The_Spartan]

Harsh's whole whimsy on Indians being related to South American mayans/incans falls falt for want of genetic link between them.

Can you provide some evidence, genetic study proving that there was any such link????

I doubt so.

Just because some carvings looks like elephants or some title of a festival sounds like "Rama" of whatever isnt evidence enough.

Unless you can provide such evidence, its advisable not to make a fool of yourself.

Better buy a

[Harsh86_Patel]

AS IF..he can negate all the efforts and expertise of those who spend ages and ages of field works and education.

A goddamn armchair Psuedo-whatever-ian!~! Ba Humbug!!!

Nevermind. Please see with your own two eyes and decide.

[Harsh86_Patel]

12,000 BCE, that's a bit far back for traditions and images to look similar on both sides of the Pacific.

So I say that IF one people influenced the other across the Pacific, it must have happened much later, say 2000 years ago.

And in that case we sure should find clear genetic links, be it with India or SE Asia.

.

I suggested an older date for the migration of peoples if there was any, i agree the cultural/traditional resembelance we currently observe might not be as old. The date i gave was more as an example of how genetic analysis of ancient migrations may be wrong.

[Harsh86_Patel]

Harsh's whole whimsy on Indians being related to South American mayans/incans falls falt for want of genetic link between them.

Can you provide some evidence, genetic study proving that there was any such link????

I doubt so.

Just because some carvings looks like elephants or some title of a festival sounds like "Rama" of whatever isnt evidence enough.

Unless you can provide such evidence, its advisable not to make a fool of yourself.

Better buy a

Abe this is what i was talking about.

I just gave a scenario to abe where if an ancient tribe in it's entirity would have migrated from location A to location B then the genetic traits associated with the tribe would dissappear from location A and would appear in location B. When we would analyse current genetic data between the two people i.e the other tribes that stayed back in location A and the desdcendants of the tribe that shifted to location B then they it would seem like this people were isolated genetically.

[Harsh86_Patel]

Though i would like to declare, that i am not yet completely certain of an ancient Indian-Mayan connection, but i am exploring the possibility. This is a subject which i have not researched in enough detail and hence i am yet to form a proper opinion for the same.

[Harsh86_Patel]

It's rather unlikely one would paint a picture/create a sculpture of an animal that hasn't existed since the end of the last glacial period.

cormac

There were a lot of elephants in south east Asia.

[The_Spartan]

Abe this is what i was talking about.

I just gave a scenario to abe where if an ancient tribe in it's entirity would have migrated from location A to location B then the genetic traits associated with the tribe would dissappear from location A and would appear in location B. When we would analyse current genetic data between the two people i.e the other tribes that stayed back in location A and the desdcendants of the tribe that shifted to location B then they it would seem like this people were isolated genetically.

How ever far the diaspora might be, we can always trace the genetic lineage.

That negates your proposition.

Unless you have evidence of gene flow from the Indian sub continent to south america in the ancient times, the whole proposition is a whimsy.

edit to add :

aaah you meant to say that the particular ancient tribe has DNA specific to it and cant be traced back or forward to any other gene pool at all??

From india? Not a chance.Humans didnt simply sprout up in the indian sub continent.

and i know that there is no use arguing out of Africa theory with you. For every accepted theories and facts, Harsh has always got an alternative theory (seriously, i would love to hear your alternative to the Out of Africa theory)

Humans migrated into the Indian Subcontinent and DNA proves it too.

But, to you, it aint proof enough.

Debating with you is like arguing with a brick wall. When we can assimilate the salient points you put forth if found true, you simply cant accept or digest what we put forth.

Unless you can prove that there has been gene flow from Ancient Indian Subcontinent Civilizations/Cultures to those in Ancient South America, i suggest you tag your theory as fiction or a whimsy.

Edited April 27, 2013 by The_Spartan

[Harsh86_Patel]

How ever far the diaspora might be, we can always trace the genetic lineage.

That negates your proposition.

Unless you have evidence of gene flow from the Indian sub continent to south america in the ancient times, the whole proposition is a whimsy.

Oh golly, what do you know of genetics? All human genomes have similar features, we all have had a common ancestor. What i am saying is that it is difficult to decide basis current genetic data,that at what point of time a peoples seperated from another. Any study claiming to do so is based on assumptions. Hence currently observed genetic data cannot be used to accurately chart ancient migrations and or connections.

A lot of gentic data observed today would have also been impacted by cultural practices of different peoples.

[Abramelin]

It's rather unlikely one would paint a picture/create a sculpture of an animal that hasn't existed since the end of the last glacial period.

cormac

Maybe you should read this post of mine:

http://www.unexplained-mysteries.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=240716&st=105#entry4749320

And add to that that it is very likely (based on art forms) that the Maya (or better, the Olmec) were in contact with people from South America.

[Abramelin]

Abstract

An analysis of the stratigraphy and radiocarbon dating of an excavation in the El Totumo site

(Tocaima, Cundinamarca, Colombia), where bones of Mastodon and Megatherium were found

associated with stone artifacts of the El Abra type, brings to the conclusion that man and

megafauna still cohabited in the area between 6000 and 5000 years before present. A stone

statue of the early San Agustín Culture (perhaps of the ninth century before Christ), shows a

face or mask that seems to represent an elephant; this may mean that they had knowledge of the

existence of Mastodons still in that time, or of an ancestral memory (cultural/ tradition) of an

earlier period.

-

Este conjunto de datos del Alto de Lavapatas, parece

corroborar los datos de El Totumo, en cuanto a la sobrevivencia

de elementos de la megafauna pleistocénica en

el Holoceno. Quizás al comienzo de la propia cultura de

San Agustín, cercana a 3000 AP (1000 AC), había todavía

algunos mastodontes sobrevivientes, o existía todavía

la tradición cultural heredada de los anteriores habitantes

de la región.

Transl.:

This set of data from the Alto de Lavapatas seems

to corroborate the data from Totumo regarding survival

of elements of Pleistocene megafauna in the Holocene.

Perhaps at the very beginning of the San Agustín

Culture, close to 3000 BP (1000 BC), there were still

some mastodon survivors, or was there was still a

cultural tradition inherited from the former inhabitants

of the region.

http://www.accefyn.org.co/revista/Vol_27/103/1-SUPERVIVENCIA.pdf

http://whc.unesco.org/pg.cfm?cid=31&id_site=744

http://translate.google.nl/translate?sl=nl&tl=en&js=n&prev=_t&hl=nl&ie=UTF-8&eotf=1&u=http%3A%2F%2Fnl.wikipedia.org%2Fwiki%2FSan_Agust%25C3%25ADn_%28cultuur%29

San Agustín, Colombia:

[Abramelin]

I couldn't find that face or mask of the San Agustín Culture, but I found this statue:

http://wigowsky.com/...ook/ch3/ch3.htm

And then this, from the Codex Borgia (Aztec):

That's one hell of a macaw....

.

Edited April 27, 2013 by Abramelin

[Harte]

That looks more like it.

If this is a macaw, I'll eat my shoes.

I hope your shoes are tasty, or that you are capable of showing that the Maya had the same word for "macaw" as they did for "elephant."

As for me, I much prefer believing the statements used by the artists themselves over what a damaged part of sculpture "seems" to look like.

Mayan art is highly stylized. Check out some of their jaguars.

Harte

Edited April 27, 2013 by Harte