Subject: Re: "Chacmool" - real Maya origin? Date: Sat, 29 Oct 2005 19:15:53 +0100 From: ray.dickenson@...> Barbara ***** wrote: > I have the book you reference, and the illustration on my page 274 is > just "Toniná bound captive". I'd draw you attention to the index which > informs us that pages marked in bold type are illustrated - this > doesn't mean that the illustration is of the referenced item/person > - only that the page on which the referenced item/person is on is an > illustrated page. What the illustrations are about/of is on pages vii > to xi. > Regardless of who the captive is, I'd content that apart from being on > his arse on the ground and a single knee drawn up, the captive bears an > insufficient number of similarities to the "Chacmool pose" to say he is > in that pose. Hi Barbara let's deal with that "captive" carving first ('cos there's more interesting stuff to follow) - On p. 273 ("The Lost Chronicles of the Maya Kings" - David Drew) you'll find the reason for the illustration on p. 274 and a translation of those glyphs on his right thigh. It reads "K'an Hoy Chitam Lord of Palenque" and the carving's on a block of limestone in Tonina City where he was presumably captured during a raid, and kept captive apparently for up to 9 years. As for his pose - the rigid formality of southern "Kings" statuary art means that a pose is totally determinative of status. His `pose' is of a captive under torture, as I believe, is the "chacmool". [Those southern "Kings" (pointy-headed and potato-faced* - see below) apparently paid dues to the gods, by torture and human-sacrifice and, if lacking prisoners to torture they'd do ritual blood-letting on themselves, wives and even their own children, most often with a `ritual' sting-ray barb, and, with adult males at least, of the penis, but with women and children seemingly mostly by cutting into and along their tongues.] NOW - more interesting stuff:- Seems to me we've got a confusion of peoples _and_ societies all conflated under name of Maya. We're looking at Meso- _and_ South America from c.1000 BCE to c 1100 CE (about 2000 yrs) - Why? Why should the people of Central America and South differ so greatly from the Asiatic peoples of the North? (see foot for summary) A glaringly obvious clue comes the first statuary of "kings" of Meso-America - the Olmec "Kings". They're clearly from Africa! And the next lot of ruling elite in southern area (so-called "classical maya") are the rather short ruling / lived (much less than c. 1000 yrs) "potato-faced kings". For several reasons (some outlined below) I believe those "potato-faces" came in one wave from Aegean / Black Sea area ("Greek nose" straight in-line with forehead) as refugees (or outcast / exiled tribes), who, by use of military techniques, became temporary "rulers" of real Maya peoples in that area and era. [Their pointy-heads came from having boards strapped to heads as babies - forcing growth backwards and up - so cerebellum (lump at back of head) is exaggeratedly extended and pointed upwards (their foreheads are almost non-existent, tho' that seems a `natural' trait of the potato-faces).] see http://www.csmonitor.com/2005/0524/csmimg/p18a.jpg "stone carving in Chiapas, of King Itzamnah Balam holding a stylized torch) and his queen, Lady K'abal Xok. The date is Oct. 28, 709" http://www.utexas.edu/features/archive/2003/graphics/mayameet6.jpg pty-hd + wife Nb. that pointy-head culteral trait was shared with elite of Peru, where babies' skulls can be found with boards still attached. see http://www.perceptions.couk.com/authority.html Nb2 The "sacrifice" needs of both Peruvian and Meso_american "pointy-heads" - along with their "greek" physiognomy - could've come direct from contemporary (late Stone-Age) Europe. From Germany to Black Sea "aryan elites" had been massively slaughtering slaves, prisoners (and even innocent travelers) for maybe thousands of years as sacrifices to their "gods" - see "Myth, Ritual & Religion" vol I - Andrew Lang (.txt available at Project Gutenberg's Etext). Lang noted that (rural) mainland Greeks were surreptitiously making human sacrifice even within recorded history. --- Whereas the last / longest surviving social system is that of the peoples of "sacred" Maya territory (even today) of Chichén-Itzá and surrounding area. We can see they're of a completely different ethnic group - head-shapes are `regular' and not at all pointy-headed - see http://www.eciad.ca/www/lib/study-slides/ballcourt.JPG and, for a close-up of that (regular-shaped) skull - see http://cas.umkc.edu/art/faculty/wahlman/quizzes/ChichenItzaSkullRelief.b.jpg Most importantly - they had _no_ kings. Their decision-makers called each other "brother". There's a possibility they could have originated in the `Atlanteans' (themselves maybe from Europe) of earlier era who lived on East Coast of North and Meso America - see http://www.perceptions.couk.com/westward.html#26nov ---- To get this in perspective consider England over the same period of 2000 yrs. First the European Celts ruled, over themselves and maybe the earlier "Pictish" or "little people" - then (omitting Romans) came lots of Vikings who ruled N England and most coastal areas or N and West (including _all round_ the Irish coast and most of Wales' coasts - my own ancestry from Angelesy - many redheads), then cam the Saxons (Germans) in East of England - and finally Normans. But even today the "average" English person's DNA is that of the Celts (and maybe even earlier), of about 10,000 yrs ago. But, as we've seen in Egyptology, the people who profess to be expert in such things are dogmatic folk whose stupid errors are driven by their need to standardize (and to religionize) all evidence under "their" preferred headings. (Maybe that's why the English are today called "anglo-saxon" although there's almost no trace of Saxon in average "English" person and the "Angles" seem to have disappeared or never were, in any numbers anyway.) - SO, expect that, as in "English" natives, DNA tests of living native Maya will show _very_ ancient European ancestry mixed with that of Sino-Asians who crossed Bering Straits just before end of Ice Age. And that same mixture should be found in Chichén-Itzá "sacred Maya" remains. ( Seems to be the case - see http://www.perceptions.couk.com/westward.html#linex ) Whereas we can expect DNA testing of "classical maya kings" remains to contain traces of later Europeans maybe from Aegean / Black Sea area, because I think we're looking at intermittent grabs for "kingship" by waves of invaders from over the Atlantic (this item recurs in Meso _and_ South American legends even today). And that these began quite early with Olmec "kings" from Africa, later overtaken by the Aegean wave of "potato-faces". cheers Ray D sorry for length of this, got a bit interested ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ "Perceptions" http://www.perceptions.couk.com ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ --------------------------------------------- FURTHER REFERENCES GO - "search perceptions" - in SEARCH-ENGINE file-ID www.perceptions.couk.com/real_maya.txt