|
Atlantis, Mu and the Maya |
|
|
|
|
Written by Xiuhcoatl
|
|
Nov 28, 2005 at 12:41 AM |
Atlantis, Mu and the Maya
Early theories attributing Mesoamerican civilization to lost
civilizations continue to deprive Native Americans of their cultural
legacy today.
by Jason Colavito
The early history of Mesoamerican studies is characterized by a grave
dispute over the origins of Mesoamerican civilization. In many ways,
this dispute is an argument over two lost continents, Atlantis and Mu,
and where their survivors may have settled. Proponents of the Atlantis
hypothesis argued that survivors of that lost continent spread to
Africa and to Central America, giving rise to advanced civilizations
like Egypt and the Maya (Orser 2001), while followers of Mu claimed
that refugees from the lost Pacific continent ventured to China and
Central America, giving rise to advanced civilizations (Tompkins 1976).
That Mesoamerican civilization began in situ is never contemplated.
The two leading advocates of their respective theories were Ignatius
Donnelly and Col. James Churchward. According to Prof. Charles Orser
(2001) Donnelly, a former vice-presidential candidate, built upon the
myth of Atlantis laid down by Plato and created a vision of the
island-continent that would last for a century after his book,
Atlantis: The Antediluvian World ceased to be remembered: "It is, quite
simply, the most significant pseudo-archaeology book ever written, and
it has provided a roadmap for the flood of pseudo-archaeology that has
come after it [Orser 2001]."
On the other end of the spectrum, Col. Churchward believed in an island
civilization located in the Pacific Ocean, whose remains he believed
can still be seen in the cyclopean ruins of the Polynesian islands,
most notably the statues of Easter Island. Alternative historian Peter
Tompkins (1976:364) says that Churchward's Mu was the origin of
civilization with "one branch of colonization [which] ran from Mu to
Central America, thence to Atlantis." In this scheme, civilization
arrived in ancient Mesoamerica by a Pacific route, and Atlantis is
downgraded to a colony of the greater Mu.
The conflict among these pre-modern diffusionist theories would lead
generations of diffusionists to claim external origins for Mesoamerican
civilization, much to the dismay of archaeologists, who tried to stop
the robbing of indigenous cultures (see Haslip-Viera et al. 1997).
THE ATLANTIC CROSSING HYPOTHESIS
Donnelly placed Atlantis in the Atlantic Ocean and had its descendants
populate the Atlantic rim, bringing culture to the ignorant natives
after the fall of the great island. This theory was eagerly adopted
among the diffusionists of the nineteenth century because, as Tompkins
(1976:36) recounts, "the similarity between Mexican and Egyptian
pyramids, hieroglyphs, and calendars was too strongly indicative of the
existence in the Atlantic of an intervening continent or group of
islands, for which Plato's account of Atlantis fit the bill." Of
course, having the side-effect of denying the native peoples a culture
on par with that of the Europeans did nothing to retard the spread of
diffusionism.
After the twentieth century rejection of the Atlantis hypothesis,
speculation transformed the Atlantis hypothesis into transoceanic
contact. However, even under this scenario, the connection is tenuous
at best. The Egyptian and Mesoamerican pyramids bear no relation to
each other in either form or function. As Haslip-Viera, Montellano and
Barbour (1997:427) point out, the Mexican pyramids were step-pyramids
with wide, accessible stairs topped with temples while the Egyptian
were regular pyramids with no access or temple-top. Furthermore, if the
Egyptians did come to the New World, why should they have taught the
Olmec of 1500 BC the pyramid-building techniques they themselves had
stopped using hundreds of years earlier?
The same year that Tompkins wrote his alternative history of Mexican
pyramid investigation, another researcher was using the old nineteenth
century theories to formulate a different view of the origins of
ancient Mexican civilization. As Gabriel Haslip-Viera, Bernard Ortiz de
Montellano and Warren Barbour (1997) discuss, Ivan van Sertima proposed
that ancient Mesoamerica derived its civilization from transatlantic
voyages by Africans. Van Sertima was on the forefront of the
Afrocentric movement, and firmly believed that African (black) people
were responsible for all of the ancient civilizations of earth: "In the
case of the Americas, a more complicated scenario had to be advanced in
order to account for the relative isolation of these continents and the
geographic obstacles posed by the Atlantic and Pacific [Haslip-Viera et
al. 1997:420]."
Van Sertima laid out a complex scenario of transatlantic voyages that
relied upon two basic pieces of evidence: African plants in the New
World, and African faces carved in ancient Olmec stones. The botanical
evidence may be disposed of in a few sentences, but the stone heads
will take a longer, more circuitous route to understand.
The botanical evidence for transoceanic contact basically boils down to
the African bottle-gourd, which, Michael Coe (2001b:34) points out, was
the first domesticate of Mesoamerican peoples, cultivated around 6500
BC. Van Sertima had argued that African voyagers brought the plant to
the New World, the oldest African bottle gourds cultivated in the Old
World date only to 3000 BC: "Thus gourds were first cultivated in the
New World much earlier than in Egypt [Haslip-Viera et al. 1997:429]."
For knowledge of gourd cultivation to travel from Africa to Mexico, it
would be necessary for the Africans to have been growing the gourd
before the Mexicans, to whom they supposedly gave it. Furthermore,
since the gourd is capable of traveling across the ocean unharmed,
Haslip-Viera, Montellano and Barbour (1997:429) argue that "there is no
need to posit human transport to the New World" because there is no
other evidence of introduced African species before Columbus.
On the other hand, the evidence for Africans immortalized in ancient
Mexican stonework requires deeper and more complex treatment.
Jacques Soustelle (1985: 10, 14) reports that the Olmec culture first
became known in 1862 with the discovery of the first colossal stone
head, but the culture was not identified as something apart from the
Maya until 1926. Thus, the first report of an Olmec head was tinged not
just with the racial attitudes of the day but also with a complete void
in the archaeological understanding of the region.
When nineteenth-century traveler José María Melgar y Serrano ventured
deep into the Mexican jungle to investigate rumors of colossal stone
statuary hidden amidst the verdant green forests, he had no way of
knowing that he would set off more than a century of speculation into
the transcontinental origins of Mesoamerican civilization. For Melgar y
Serrano had discovered the first signs of the oldest high civilization
in the Americas, the Olmec, and he was shocked by one of their colossal
stone heads which seemed to him to bear an uncanny resemblance to
African peoples: "As a work of art, it is, without exaggeration, a
magnificent sculpture... but what most amazed me was that the type it
represents is Ethiopian. I concluded that there had doubtless been
blacks in this region, and from the very earliest stages of the world
[Soustelle 1985:9]."
Over the course of the next hundred and forty years, scores of authors
would write about the African appearance of the Olmec and hold up these
colossal stone heads as proof that voyagers from Africa had given the
Olmec the boon of civilization.
In 1995, alternative historian Graham Hancock released his massive
tome, Fingerprints of the Gods, in which he expanded on the old
diffusionist theories for the origin of the Olmec. In claiming that the
Olmec heads were of African origin, Hancock (1995: 131) argued that "It
would probably be impossible . . . for a sculptor to invent the
different combined characteristics of an authentic racial type. The
portrayal of an authentic combination of racial characteristics
therefore implied strongly that a human model had been used." These
traits referred to were apparently the broad noses and thick lips of
the Olmec heads, which van Sertima, Hancock and others link to Africans.
However, as any biological anthropologist could demonstrate, phenotypes
have virtually nothing to do with race. As Jurmain, Nelson, Kilgore and
Trevathan (1998:108) note, race is not a biological concept: "the
amount of genetic variation accounted for by differences between groups
is vastly exceeded by the variation that exists within groups." As a
result, "race is a meaningless concept [Jurmain et al. 1998:108]." So
having thus established that there are no races to be depicted on the
Olmec heads, next it must be shown that the heads do not share the same
characteristics with their supposed models.
Haslip-Viera, Montellano and Barbour (1997:423) spend a considerable
amount of space discussing the evolutionary history of flat noses and
wide lips as adaptations to the Mexican tropical climate. The old
argument that Egyptians gave civilization to the Olmec is untenable by
these heads because "Nubians and Egyptians have longer, thinner noses
because they have lived in a desert (Haslip-Viera et al. 1997: 423)."
That the heads were of West African (stereotypically black) origin is
also refuted by noting that West Africans are prognathic (jutting
jawed), while the Olmec heads are markedly not. Also, the Olmec heads
have epicanthic eye-folds like Asians, while African populations do
not. In other words, the Olmec heads show Mexican people: "they
resembled people who still live in the tropical lowlands of Mexico
[Haslip-Viera et al. 1997:423]."
The African-origins hypothesis seemed initially to accord well with the
hyperdiffusionist movement of the late nineteenth century. It was then
assumed that civilization began in Egypt and spread from there to all
corners of the world, and that the peoples of the Americas had to have
received their civilization from outside sources because of their
biological inferiority (Haslip-Viera et al. 1997:420).
Of course, the late nineteenth century thinkers were troubled by the
seemingly African features of the Olmec sculptures, since the
Egyptians, whose civilization was the antecedent of all, were believed
then to be Caucasian people. The so-called Negroid type was thought to
be biologically inferior, as well. The genius of van Sertima's
hypothesis was that it made the African phenotype the biologically
superior one, and thus "established" that the old views were correct,
but in the wrong color: "It is curious that this hypothesis has
resurfaced in the late 20th century in revised form, with the
biologically superior people now being identified as blacks'
[Haslip-Viera et al. 1997:420]."
The African origins hypothesis has been refuted successfully on purely
scientific grounds. Nevertheless, the manifold theories of African
origins, in the words of Jacques Sostelle [1985:10], "continue to haunt
Mexican archaeology like unsuccessfully exorcised ghosts."
THE PACIFIC CROSSING HYPOTHESIS
If the Africa-origins thinkers traced the beginning of their theory to
the fiery demise of Atlantis, so do the Asian-origins speculators find
their own lost continent had a hand in shaping the rise of Mesoamerican
civilization. Writing after the demise of Donnelly's Atlantis theories,
Col. James Churchward declared in 1930 the fabulous land of Mu was a
Pacific continent greater than Atlantis, and that Central America was
but a colony of this great land. While Tompkins (1976:372) believes
that the Mu myth could explain the origins of Mesoamerican
civilization, Churward's "word can only be taken by those who wish to
believe him." Without evidence to back up his claims, Churchward's
theory of a lost continent fell to the dustbin of history, though the
idea of trans-Pacific voyages did not.
Michael Coe (2001a:57) mentions that "the possibility of some
trans-Pacific influence on Mesoamerican cultures cannot, however, be so
easily dismissed." The Asian-influence hypothesis has a stronger basis
in fact than its African competitor, though there is still precious
little to go on.
The strongest, and indeed only hard piece of evidence for trans-Pacific
contact is the use of a particular technique for the manufacture of
bark paper, common to China, Southeast Asia, Indonesia and Mesoamerica.
Coe (2001a:58) says that knowledge of this paper-making method "was
diffused from eastern Indonesia to Mesoamerica at a very early date."
He further argues that since bark paper was used to make books,
information may have been exchanged between Pacific and Mesoamerican
peoples. This seems to accord with Tompkin's (1976:353) version of
ancient Chinese records, which he claims document a transoceanic voyage
between China and Mesoamerica in the fifth century A.D. Yet even if
true, this would provide no evidence for Asian influence, since Olmec
civilization sprang into being around 1500 B.C. (Soustelle 1985:31) and
Maya civilization was well into its Classic Period greatness centuries
before the supposed voyage (Coe 2001b: 82). However, Tompkins
(1976:353) claimed earlier connection between China and Mesoamerica
around the twenty-third century B.C. He was forced to concede, however,
that since "there are no known historical records for such early
periods... these stories float in a limbo between fact and fiction
[Tompkins 1976:354]."
Another attempt to relate Mesoamerican cosmology to the Chinese
involved the calendar system. Coe states (2001a:57) that the 260-day
Mesoamerican calendar cycle, with its animal symbolism, is a
near-perfect analog to the Southeast Asian lunar calendar:
"Furthermore, Asian and Mesoamerican cosmological systems, which
emphasize a quadripartite universe of four cardinal points associated
with specific colors, plants, animals, and even gods, are amazingly
similar [Coe 2001a:57]." Balaji Mundkur (1978:541) challenged this idea
decades ago, arguing that the comparison was faulty: "These comparisons
seem feeble not only because they are superficial and intrinsically
contradictory, but also because they are opposed by a vast body of
[Asian] religious symbolism. Furthermore, they are chronologically
incompatible with historical events." For Mundkur (1978:542), the
differences between Asian and Mesoamerican art far outweigh the
superficial resemblances, and art analysis can only provide a
subjective connection between the Old and New Worlds, especially since
so much of the Asian culture supposedly borrowed by Mesoamericans
actually arose hundreds of years after the rise of the Maya and Mexican
civilizations.
But the superficial similarity in artistic styles has given rise to
another line of argument. Among the most common arguments for
trans-Pacific contact with Mesoamerica is a shared cult of the serpent,
based on the presumed similarity of Chinese, Hindu and Mayan
depictions. Both Asia and Mesoamerica dedicated shrines to serpents,
and the cult of the serpent is seen in the most ancient civilized sites
of Mesoamerica, including the Olmec occupation of Chalcatzingo (Coe
2001b:77) and La Venta (Hancock 1995:131f) as well as in ancient China
and India (Mundkur 1976:429). However, the similarities appear to stop
there. Mundkur (1976:429) successfully casts doubt on diffusionist
claims when he notes that "the characteristics of the serpent cult in
pre-Columbian civilized Mesoamerica... differ fundamentally from the
serpent lore of India and Southeast Asia." Further, he notes that
serpent worship is common not just to Asia and America but to nearly
every known ancient culture and survived hunter-gatherers, from North
America to Australia (Mundkur 1976:429). Something so universal cannot
be taken to indicate common origin in historical times, though could
conceivably point still further back to the Jungian archetypes that
Victor Mansfield (1981) identified in the Mesoamerican pecked circles.
Both Asia and America seemed to share a penchant for making mandalas,
the drawn or carved circles of divine meditation favored by Hindus and
Buddhists. Victor Mansfield (1981:274) says that the Mesoamerican
mandalas were of Teotihuacan origin and shared a similar shape and
placement in temples to their Asian counterparts. He offers an
explanation for the superficial similarity of Mesoamerican "pecked
circles" to Asian mandalas: "the pecked circles may serve as calendars
[1981:274]" because they have a cross within the circle whose arms tend
to point to the direction of solstices and equinoxes. While Mansfield
(1981: 274-275) goes on to offer an Jungian interpretation of the way
universal psychic forces influenced mandala (and Christian labyrinth)
designs, the calendar representation is the most likely, especially
when one remembers that the Mesoamericans envisioned the universe in
four parts, thus the cross divides the pecked circle into four
sections. Of course, to the Asian-origin hypothesis's credit, Asian
(especially Chinese) cosmology emphasized a quadripartite universe.
Yet, despite the stories and rumors surrounding Asian influence in
Central America, there is very little hard evidence beyond the bark
paper manufacturing technique. Coe (2001a:57) makes the point more
succinctly: "[I]t should be categorically emphasized that no objects
manufactured in the Old World have been identified in any Maya site."
However, Coe (2001a:58) did agree that the Maya may have received Asian
ideas "at a few times in their early history," though in no sense are
they "derivative from Old World prototypes."
BEYOND HYPERDIFFUSIONISM
Thus far we have examined hypotheses that, while routed in old ideas of
lost continents, dealt specifically with trans-oceanic origins for
Mesoamerican civilization in an attempt to prove an Old World origin
for New World civilization. The logical extension of this line of
diffusionist thinking was a return to the nineteenth-century vision of
a lost motherland for human civilization, this time with a space-age
twist.
Swiss author Erich von Däniken (1969:viii) caused a sensation when he
claimed "that our forefathers received visits from the universe in the
remote past." Part obfuscation and part wild speculation, Däniken
(1969:104) claimed that the Mesoamerican Feathered Serpent deity was a
space alien because in his world, space aliens flew across the sky in
rocket-ships, and these rockets seemed like snakes to the ancient Maya,
who were presumably too stupid to understand much of anything: "How
could anyone worship this repulsive creature as a god, and why could it
fly as well? Among the Maya it could [von Däniken 1969:104]."
Therefore, the Feathered Serpent must have been a rocket ship.
For von Däniken, the famed sarcophagus lid of Lord Pacal of Palenque
shows not the "gigantic fleshless jaws ... the World Tree [and] the
bird-monster Wuqub' Kaqix [Coe: 2001a:137]" but machinery: "today any
child would identify his vehicle as a rocket [von Däniken 1969:100]."
Almost thirty years later, Hancock (1995:151) argued after this line of
reasoning that the tomb of Pacal "resembled a technological device much
more strongly than it did... the king falling back into the fleshless
jaws of the earth-monster." Only for Hancock, the agent responsible for
this technology was not extraterrestrials, but "an older and a higher
civilization [Hancock 1995:155]," not unlike the legendary Atlantis or
Mu, long ago dismissed as improbable and unsupported by evidence. Thus
the circle that began a century ago with Donnelly and then Churchward
closes with more of the same.
Despite criticism from the scientific establishment, including famed
scientist Carl Sagan, the ancient astronaut and lost civilization
hypothesis remains popular. According to Omni (1994:77) "One of Sagan's
original objections was the underlying assumption that our ancestors
were apparently too stupid to create the monumental architecture of our
past." And indeed, this is the theme that cuts across all the
diffusionist ideas about the origins of Mesoamerican civilization. Each
of these authors argues that the Mesoamericans were incapable of
creating a unique, vital and exciting civilization on their own, and
that they needed outside agents to help them overcome their mental
handicaps.
This view is not only wrong, it is also racist. It is racist whether it
comes from supporters of the Caucasian refugees of a lost continent
(see Hancock 1995:102-104) or the Afrocentrists who see Africans as the
superior race (see Haslip-Viera et al. 1997:420). What these belief
systems fail to understand is that humanity has no biological
determinism, that intelligence and the ability to create and to
understand are not characteristics belonging to races, but individuals
(Jurmain et al. 1998:109). Mesoamericans had a long tradition of
civilization and culture before the Spanish conquest, and no attempt to
rewrite history can deny the ancient peoples of Mexico their cultural
heritage.
If you enjoyed this article and need a motivated, talented, and
insightful writer for your organization, please check out my resume.
References
Coe, M. D. 2001 The Maya. Sixth Edition. Reprinted. Thames & Hudson, Singapore. Originally published 1994.
Coe, M. D. 2001 Mexico: From the Olmec to the Aztecs. Fourth Edition.
Reprinted. Thames & Hudson, Singapore. Originally published 1994.
Däniken, E. von. 1969 Chariots of the Gods? Bantam, New York.
Hancock, G. 1995 Fingerprints of the Gods. Crown, New York.
Haslip-Viera, G., B. Ortiz de Montellano, and W. Barbour. 1997 CA Forum
on Anthropology in Public: Robbing Native American Cultures: Van
Sertimas Afrocentricity and the Olmec. Current Anthropology. 38:
419-441.
Huyghe, P. 1994 UFO Update: The Rise, Fall and Afterlife of Erich von Däniken's Theory of Extraterrestrial Gods. Omni. May: 77.
Jurmain, R., H. Nelson, L. Kilgore, W. Trevathan. 1998 Essentials of
Physical Anthropology. Third Edition. West/Wadsworth, Belmont
California.
Mansfield, V. 1981 Mandalas and Mesoamerican Pecked Circles. Current Anthropology. 22: 269-284.
Mundkur, B. 1976 The Cult of the Serpent in Mesoamerica: Its Asian Background. Current Anthropology. 17: 429-455.
--------. 1978 The Alleged Diffusion of Hindu Divine Symbols into
Pre-Columbian Mesoamerica: a Critique. Current Anthropology. 19:
541-583.
Orser, C. 2001 The Father of Atlantis, Ignatius Donnelly, Created the
Modern Myth and Molded Pseudo-Archaeology. Archaeology Today. n.pag
http://www.archaeologytoday.net/1100toc/011701-atlantis.shtml
Soustelle, J. 1985. The Olmecs: The Oldest Civilization in Mexico.
Translated by H. R. Lane. University of Oklahoma Press, Norman,
Oklahoma.
Tompkins, P. 1976 Mysteries of the Mexican Pyramids. Harper & Row, New York.
© 2002 Jason Colavito. All rights reserved. |
|
History 