Mayan Findings And Some Questions
As a fifteen year old, I read Eric Von Danikens series of books, one of the books being, The chariots of the Gods and wondered whether the great monuments of the World were indeed built by extra terrestrials, as the series of books argued.
Some time was spent on the terrace peering at the sky , hoping to catch up on those ET s
and if possible arrange for a scoop photograph of them. They didnt arrive, but Exams did.
A couple of years later, Architecture school taught that great civilizations existed in different parts of the World and the study of why and how people built their religious buildings was extremely interesting.
[ May be humans built them after all!]
A healthy sense of respect grew for all cultures that built and the Why they built what they built questions were answered well to a large extent, by the authors of text books.
The Pyramids in ancient Egypt, 
the Mastabas in ancient Mesopotamia and the Mayan relics seemed similar in their fundamental concept regarding form.[ Pyramidical forms and their derivatives]
The form of Hindu temple towers [ Both North Indian and Dravidian - that term pertains to region and not an ethnic group ] symbolized mountain [ Maha Meru] and the term Shikara that applied to the pinnacle of the tower literally means summit.
The first [ and sometimes the only]book on Architectural History all students of Architecture study, is by Sir Banister Fletcher and the later editions include a chapter on Mayan architecture.
However , Indians schools of Architecture dont prescribe this in their curriculum [ may be, hopefully its studied in the schools in the Americas ,as it is more relevant to them] and concentrate on Egyptian, Mesopotamian , Greek, Roman, Byzantine and Early Christian architecture in the first year of studies.
Yours truly taught this subject for a while a few years ago [ a subject thats generally handed over to History enthusiasts or better- put, nuts who dont mind sketching on the board/preparing a number of OHP slides] and those whorefer to five hundred years as "recent"...The experience which also gave an opportunity to spend a lot of time reading in a college library that was well stocked with good books.
I am thinking of working on a series of articles on why Hindu temple architecture didnt evolve much structurally [as some people point out ].
This will be from a different perspective as that of a person who saw ones owns treasures through someone elses eyes.]
Please correct me if I am wrong or too right here-I ve been wondering whether Mayan architecture
[ which provides probably the only set of evidences about that obliterated culture] may be suffering from the same syndrome Eastern cultures, especially ours suffer from.
[ Understand these Mayans from our Western, twenty first century perspective . Prepare those results we like and conduct experiments to prove those results].
Built concrete evidences are not the only way to understand a bygone culture and we need literary evidence too.
How much of that is available in this case?
I am reminded of another article I read about how a young girls mummified corpse [ in a sitting position] was found in South America and the sentimental lines about human sacrifice.
I was again wondering how of this human sacrifice issue is true. Could it have been for religious reasons as the article pointed out?
Or could it have been honor killing not sanctioned by the religion and hence a sociological issue that opens a window to those times?
I have heard of a particular Amman in TN,a female deity worshipped by a particular group [ the sacred feminine Indians are comfortable with] who was actually a young girl killed by her own family as they wanted to protect her from a lecherous king.
What evidence tells the researchers that people were sacrificed on religious beliefs rather than sociological reasons?
Please read on and share your thoughts...
I am pasting an Yahoo article here and adding my comments [ in italics ] in between.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/livescience/20080226/sc_livescience/ancientmayanstemplesforeveryone
Special to LiveScience
LiveScience.com
Tue Feb 26, 2:55 PM ET
It was long thought that the ancient stone pyramid temples of the Maya were built by their royalty.
Now it turns out any number of different factions among the Maya - nobles, priests and maybe even commoners - may have built temples, scientists now suggest.
The fact that different groups had the will and the power to build temples suggests "the Maya could choose which temples to worship in and support; they had a voice in who succeeded politically," said researcher Lisa Lucero, an archaeologist at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign.
Could it be that true pluralism existed then and just how today in India , different community groups build different type of Hindu temples based on their belief sytem ,all within the same village?
We once did a study in a village near Chennai and noted that, apart from a temple dedicated to Lord Vishnu, there were temples built by different communities that were dedicated to Lord Muruga, Devi [Amman] and Muniswaran.
The building style is the same ,but they are temples built and maintained by different classes of people. Seems to me a case of pluralism rather than political will.
The first temples of the Maya arose more than 2,000 years ago. Their word for these stone pyramids was the same as their word for mountain, and the massive stepped temples at times reached more than 200 feet high.
Note that this period is close to the period when Buddhist structures were evolving. [The period as per the books]
Mountain? Maha Meru? Tower symbolism?
Why were some cultures more interested in piling up of masonry rather than liberating space? by freeing it from columns? Did they lack the ability to do lateral thinking as some researcgers suggest ? Or was their Architecture [as was their culture] heavily hung on symbolism?
"Human sacrifice did occur at temples, but only rarely, unlike the Aztec, who sacrificed daily in the belief the sun would not rise otherwise," Lucero said. "Only a few powerful Maya kings performed human sacrifice, and they did it to kill rulers from elsewhere. And they didn't do it to bring, say, better weather, but to highlight 'me, me, me.'"
What sort of evidences exist to prove this point?. Informed readers, please let me know.
Lucero and her colleagues investigated temples in Yalbac, a Mayan center in the steaming jungles of central Belize. "We were surrounded by howler monkeys, toucans, spider monkeys, orchids, spiders, scorpions and snakes," she recalled. "Killer bees are now in the area, and a hive can just appear one day. I ran immediately when I saw one, and I was still stung four times."
Mysteriously, there are six temples all close together in Yalbac, ranging from 25 to 50 feet high. "Why did they need six? Did they have one for different days of the week? Different gods? Different seasons?" Lucero wondered.
Upon investigating each temple - which date from the Late Classic period of Mayan history , about 550 to 850 A.D. - she noted their construction and materials could differ from each other quite significantly. Two higher quality temples used larger outermost stones and more mortar to fill the insides of the pyramids. "These essentially cost more money, and may have been royal," Lucero said. "But the other temples may not have been built by royalty at all."
Each temple might have served a different god, such as the rain god Chak, or the sun god or maize god. The building of each temple might also serve as a record of ancient power struggles.
Power struggles or coming to terms with pluralism?
"When a new ruler comes to power, they might build their own place, or if the rulers did not predict the best time to plant crops, others might suggest, 'Come to my temple, the ruler has clearly failed,'" Lucero said.
In and around Tamil nadu , one will find hundreds of temples built by the Pallavas and by the later Cholas.
Were the kings who built them mere almanac experts?
They were Shaivite and Vaishnavite kings who reserved the best material [ stone] for the sacred rather than for themselves.
Is there an attempt to demean , by using informal language, to trivialize these religious structures and the culture itself through that attempt?
Looters had carved nine trenches into the Yalbac site in their pursuit of ancient treasure. This summer Lucero and her colleagues hope to see "if the looters missed caches - artifacts consisting of shell, jade, ceramics, lithics, et cetera - that may provide clues as to temple function and purpose," she said.
So is the study dependent on the looterss left overs?
In that case, how confident can we be, while asserting ithi hasa [ Thus it happened] as in the line me me me or Come to my temple? .
Is there a conscious attempt to make one think ancient American cultures =impalers/human sacrificers/gory ritual practioners as in the lines of Hinduism =Casteism ?
TrackBack URI for this entry
Subscribe to this comment's feed
written by narensomu, 2008-03-28 23:12:21
Thanks for the link.
Will look that up.
One need not be an Architect-in fact that would be better if one isnt-ones's mind will be clear of all accepted academic ideas.
Yes, these structures are fascinating. And the tragedy of this culture is it has been oblitrated recently [ five hundred years and there is so much they can tell us.
Very few people who can speak the each of the several native toungues exist.So once they are gone, we have no way of finding that particular piece of this puzzle.
Would we lose precious info forever?
Let's see how things turn out.
Regards
ns
-
- +0
-
-
written by narensomu, 2008-03-28 23:06:25
Thanks for the clear explanation.
Yes, the function differed but the form is the same.
The ancient Romans were the first ones to "liberate" space from columns thanks to their experimentation with arches and domes.
But the ancient Buddhists here[ around the same time] dabbled with that form [ stupa/dome] in a different pile up Earth-sort of way.Not a structure that could be used from the inside but a circumambulation concept.
Why these other cultures experimented with pyramidal forms alone [ of a certain "right" proportion] is an intriguing question.
THose who could hoist huge blocks up above so many meters-could they have been inferior Engineers?
Or did they build mountains as they thought that is the only visual way to make a structure imposing?
Were they influenced by the landscape around? [ Egyptians were operating form a plain devoid of any hills or mountains]
Regarding the circumambulatory paths you so rightly point out, yes that was mandatory.
The ancient temples in Egypt had them too-there is some info on main shrines surrounded by smaller ones -idols taken on a procession etc and corridors that are built around the sanctum sanctorum!
Too fascinating to think about. If one gets a chance visiting these sites might be even more fascinating.
But a complete picture will be obtained only when different streams of knowledge get integrated. Knowledge of the ancient, "modern", literary knowledge and just about every kind of expertise we can think about.
All this minus prejudice.
Regards
ns
-
- +0
-
-
written by narensomu, 2008-03-28 22:48:09
Thanks you but the credit for placing the images at the right place and at the right proportion goes to Dwai.
Those are kind words but am not sure I deserve that-taught just for five years in a college near Chennai-took up that offer as teaching jobs are the only ones where one could work regular fixed hours and after work , where one would be able to spend time with small kids.
Also, the joy of getting paid to talk about one's favorite subjects.:-))
Right now am not teaching, would like to, but am in the middle of "action"-more involved with modern buildings rather than ancient ones.
THe History books are sorely missed though.
Medha gives an oppurtunity to talk about interests we cant really pursue while we operate in our regular "Avtars".
Reg. your question, the form is similar but the function wasnt.
There were quite a few books about pyramids that were published from Chennai.
The Egyptian pyramids were supposed to have cryogenic properties-not sure am phrasing it right, but they somehow helped in preserving the mummies.
My Father made a small table-top cardboard pyramid [ smae proportion as the ones in Gizah, Cairo]to test whether it could really preserve vegetables.
We didnt continue this home made exercise but those who are interested can.
You might be able to throw more light on this- author Eric Daniken says that the Egyptian ones were meant to trap cosmic rays. I have to look this up, the fact is no one knows how the blocks [ weighing a tonne each ] were put in place.
These structures were meant to be used from the inside of the "mountain "form .
Some time later I 'd post the section of this when I get the image-they have subterranean chambers that lead to the crypt or tomb.
Reg. the Mayan ones, we have been told that they were associated with "Pagan"worship-when I read that their word for "mountain"and the structures were one and the same I was struck by the Maha Meru symbolism applied in our temple towers. The term Shikara throws some lght on it.
They werent meant to be used from the interior-but we know precious little about the Mayan examples!
Hope an unbiased international team gets to research the structures.
One can always hope.
Regards
ns
-
- +0
-
-
written by narensomu, 2008-03-28 22:19:31
What you give is relevant info.
Thank you.
Heard of Mayan [ Pronounced as Partha says]-he is an Asura Shilpi while Vishwakarma is a Deva shilpi-sort of like Sukracharya and Brahaspathi[ puranic Jupiter].
Vishwakarma got to do all of Deva projects while Mayan worked his magic for the netherworlds[ America?]
Pyramids are fascinating-it's sad that the ones in America dont get as much attention as the ones in Egypt.
However, the ones in Egypt served a different purpose.
Will look up links and get back.
Regards
ns
-
- +0
-
-
written by Soumi Basu, 2008-03-28 21:20:41
I have been meaning to thank you for such an informative and illustrated article, but never got around to it before.
I am no architect, but ancient cultures interest me. Thanks to you I read up a whole lot of interesting stuff on the Net that I had no idea about.
You can take a look at the link below. I found it quite interesting.
http://www.ece.lsu.edu/kak/axistemple.pdf
-
- +0
-
-
written by P. Desikan, 2008-03-26 23:26:10
While we wait for a response from Narensomu with her architecture expertise and archaeological orientations,here are some lay ti.dbits.
Maya (hrasva not deergha ma)is described in our puranas as a divine architect, also from Indraloka, but differnt from Visvakarma,who is worshipped by sthapatis and artisans of various descriptions in India.He occurs in itihasas too. His daughter Mandodari marries Ravana and her son Meghanada learns Mayavi skills from him. He builds a magical palace where Duryodana and brothers get into comic situations, when they are guests of Pandavas for whom he builds them.
Unlike Visvakarma, this great builder did not mind associating with the netherworlds (Americas of the period?)
If you take another look at Narensomu's pictures of these great structures, you will notice one common feature between the South Indian gopurams and the Mayan towers in that the provision of circumambulatory paths at several levels betweeen base and top is intentional and compulsory, whereas with the pyramids it is optional and not always functional.
it is another matter that the main function is different in each of these structures, residential colony, cenotaph and temple.
Regards. Partha.
-
- +0
-
-
written by Dwai, 2008-03-26 22:29:06
I'm happy that I have the good fortune of interacting with such brilliant and intense people on Medha Journal. I truly believe that if we continue to support each other and keep doing what we are doing, we'll have many more people join us. Since we have built it, they will come...
I had read an article in "the Week" magazine close to a decade ago where the top South Indian Sthapatya expert claimed that Indian Temple Architecture was handed down by a person called Mayan.
Unfortunately, I couldn't find that article...but here's another one that alludes to some connections.
http://www.hinduwisdom.info/Pacific.htm
I don't want to lead this discussion on a tangent, but some food for thought, right?
Regards,
Dwai
-
- +0
-
-
written by Dr. Pradip Gangopadh, 2008-03-26 12:50:49
What gorgeous pictures and you turn out to have taught archeology! Dwai seems to have assembled a number of medhabi people!
By the way I have a question for you. Are Egyptian pyramids and Mayan pyramids related in anyway. The two styles seem so similar!
Regards
Gangp
-
- +0
-
-
written by narensomu, 2008-03-26 09:12:26
Thanks for placing the images at the appropriate places.
They look very good.
Regards
ns
-
- +0
-
-
written by narensomu, 2008-03-26 09:09:20
The last line of my previous comment should read "Just started looking at great buildings from an angle other than the [/b]accepted academic angle".
Dear Akshaye, Partha
Thanks for the info.Will look up Pirsig's take on this.
Akshaye,It's ok to talk about things we dont know fully well-Our's is a culture that is encouraged to question and discuss.
No "Dont question things-just follow the book" rules .So there.:-))
I never questioned these findings until a few years ago. There used to be a vague sense of discomfort when people said,"Hindu temples are just piled up masonry.No structural innovations of any kind."
But, now I understand, we can't look at religious buildings without understanding something of the underlying religious philosophy.
The same way we cant understand why an interior is done the way it is, without knowing what went in to the concept.[ Religion, especially ones that have philosophical foundations are very complex. One has to tread carefully there] Which some accepted ideas haven't done , in my opinion.
I posted another article about another blanket statement sometime ago.[ Ferrous oxide or[ Flights of fancy?]This one too addresses similar "research" issues .
There might be plain ignorance when people make blanket statements in the name of research, or...there could be a purpose behind it.
Someone starts these ideas, all others follow like lambs.
In some academic circles you might find blind adherence to certain ideas/concepts.
As people brought up on an Eastern culture, let's question and seek as much as we can!
We have the freedom for it.
The answers will come if the questions are asked.
Thanks for both your comments.
This topic is something that has fascinated me since very long.
Regards
ns
-
- +0
-
-
written by narensomu, 2008-03-26 08:46:32
Yes, I have heard of that-E V Daniken argues all great structures were built by extra terrestrials.
Another author Noorbergen says great civilisations are Earthy:-)-he talks abt pre-flood and post flood cultures [ as in the flood mentioned in Matsya Purana]
I like Noorbergen's explanation better.As a child/teen, I was upset by the suggestion that Ram and Krishna could be mere ETs.
Your comment on the Mayan runway once again made my imagination run away well ahead of me-thinking of Pushpaka vimana-wish great literature and ancient ruins will get impassiontely researched.
Me wishing for too much.:-))
Yes, I am one.Just started looking at great buildings from an accepted academic angle.
Regards
ns
-
- +0
-
-
written by P. Desikan, 2008-03-26 04:40:10
Great beauty in your poignant structured, well illustrated article. The last question is the key sentence and Akshay sensed it and zeroed in on the key words,'conscious attempt to make one think'(in forced cliches). His answer supplies the related key words,'attempts at subconsciously denigrating'. Pirsig must indeed be read to understand the lengths to which such systematic denigration had prevailed.
We all know that we owe the ills of our so called caste system less to Manu than to the gora sahibs and their disciples in power in India.
In their old scriptures, the followers of Abraham refer to the third ever human being to be born killing the fourth, his brother. Since then, hordes of unthinking Cains have never felt scruples while destroying cultures which they did not understand by both open and devious means.
-
- +0
-
-
written by akshaypeshwe, 2008-03-26 00:34:41
: >Is there a conscious attempt to make one think ancient American
>cultures =impalers/human sacrificers/gory ritual practioners
>as in the lines of Hinduism =Casteism ?
I can't say with clarity whether such a situation truly exists. But from what I've read about Native Americans and the white colonist expansionist attitudes, attempts at subconsciously denigrating the impression of Native Americans among the minds of common people have been made since quite some time. If not explicit denigration, at least they have not been recognized from a proper perspective, they have been projected as being anti-scientific. Robert Maynard Pirsig covers this well in his book Lila: An Inquiry into Morals.
-
- +0
-
-
written by Sreeparna, 2008-03-25 21:36:20
This will be from a different perspective as that of a person who saw one’s own’s treasures through someone else’s eyes.]
Dear NS,
Beautiful article, and lot of questions. I did hear that a Mayan ruin has a runaway that can have a very advanced flying objects land. Is that a myth? Were those civilizations more advanced than we think they were?
I am looking forward to your series of articles on Hindu Temple architecture. Are you an architect?
Warm regards,
Hatimtai
-
- +0
-
-
| < Prev |
|---|
That was a fantastic amount of info in those links .
Thanks a lot for the links!
Dwai
The latest link you gave has a wonderful article on the Sthapathi's visit to these sites and am particularly excited by finding the word Chilambalam[ Ambalam in Tamil meaning sacred space and it's a word commonly used in Malayalam now ,to refer to a temple.
Too much of coincidence.
And more proof that some academic circles are indeed either purposely or out of ignorance misleading people.
Soumi,
The info your link talks about what the Vedas say regarding dimensions for religious rites and how they have influenced temple Arch. It is priceless.
Have heard that the Atharva Veda gives detailed info on this but never, never connected them to temple Architecture!
You know why? It was drummed in to our then seventeen year old heads that Hindu temples were modelled after Buddhist sacred structures and till then the clueless Hindus were worshipping nature !
Will get back , may be in another article after re-reading articles in the links and after doing some thinking.
Regards
ns