Discovery of Mayan 'Sistine Chapel' rewrites ancient history

Thought some of our ancient history fans would be interested in this.

Quote:

---

An accidental discovery of a Mayan mural considered the equivalent of the Sistine Chapel has prompted historians to reconsider the age of the Central American civilization. Archaeologist William Saturno stumbled across the stunning nine-metre mural by chance at the site of San Bartolo in Guatemala. Describing the moment he saw the vibrant mural in a tunnel, he stated: ‘I had accidentally made the discovery of a lifetime - a small portion of a brilliantly painted mural more than 2,000 years old.’ The well-preserved plaster work was made in 100BC and depicts a maize-god deity offering sacrifices and another section shows the coronation of royalty.

---

http://www.historytoday.com/dt_archi...965=x&g19963=x

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Templar Knight

Thought some of our ancient history fans would be interested in this.



http://www.historytoday.com/dt_archi...965=x&g19963=x

---

Interesting. I wish they would give more details and show some pictures of the mural.

:san_shocked:
cool

hmm.....

On the History Today website this is under 'breaking news' but when I google for more info it says that this discovery was in 2002.

Nah, we are ok, that was another discovery in 2002 by the same man.

Here is the lastest one with a pic: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4526872.stm

Wooow baby..... :san_shocked:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Templar Knight

Nah, we are ok, that was another discovery in 2002 by the same man.

Here is the lastest one with a pic: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4526872.stm

---

Heh. :cheerleader:

Here is more: National Geographic

Isn't that that huge huge huge pyramid that absolutely dwarfs any other (including the ones in Egypt)?

I saw a program about that and the mural (can't remember if they were at the same site) on either Discoevery or NGC, but that was more than year ago.
Interestingly, the Mayan dateline for their genesis now fits very well, in fact some of the earliest rulers can now be proven to have existed... That is pretty effective archiving by the Mayans.

Very interesting.

I'm really going to have to read more about the Mayans. I've heard a number of intiguing snippets of information on them recently, and I'm itching to find out more.

The mayans were a very sophisticated and advanced culture for their time. I've been too Chichen Itza, which is a location of one of the largest Mayan Pyramids, and it is just amazing. Unfortunately, thanks large in part to the Spanish, most ancient scripts, and tomes were destroyed because they were 'heretical'. So trying to find any solid evidence on who the Mayans, and how they lived has been greatly compromised. At Chichen Itza there is an old Mayan 'rune' thing, that actually dated the Conquistador (can't remember his name, the one who destroyed the Aztecs:san_embarassed: ) to the exact day and time of his arrival, and even described him as having a beard (which was almost virtually unknown to Central American peoples, considering they didn't have facial hair), and it prophesized his coming almost 300 years earlier.:san_grin:

Are you sure? I mean the Aztecs themselves had that myth (come-real) too, which was part of their stammering response to Cortez.

Well, I haev been to both Chichen Itza and Palenque, and while Itza was nice you should really check out Palenque. But beware, it is way hotter (deep in the jungle).

yeah but the aztecs saw him as a god, cuz their first god/king came from the same direction was big and blond and bearded. thats why they were so kind. correct me if wrong

That is right... Quezalqoatl (argh impossible to spell), the Feathered Serpent in human form was a white man with a beard that came from the east across the sea in a floating city with lots of white cloth (sound like a ship?). And they had a the date down as well...

yeah ill check my books for the date

Quote:

---

.. Quezalqoatl (argh impossible to spell)

---

No, not really, Quetzalcoatl is very easy, there are worst like Mictlantecuhtli and Mictlancihualt "fathers" of Tlatlauqui-Tezcatlipoca, Yayauqhui-Tezcalipoca, Yohualli-Ehecatl (Quetzalcoatl) and Huitzilopochtli.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Favius Argentum

No, not really, Quetzalcoatl is very easy, there are worst like Mictlantecuhtli and Mictlancihualt "fathers" of Tlatlauqui-Tezcatlipoca, Yayauqhui-Tezcalipoca, Yohualli-Ehecatl (Quetzalcoatl) and Huitzilopochtli.

---

Ok, dear patrons, you are witnessing a breaking point about the Mayan history. Their civilization was not destroyed by any invasion or something. They all ended up with throat cancer and disappeared.

Yes, I'm a genius.

whahhahahaha

This obvously proves the existance of Conan.

I think that was a pretty common name in the Celtic Fringe, you know. But then Howard gets props for an open mind as far as sources of names go.

Speaking of the Conquistadors (the chap credited with leading the demolition of the Aztec empire was named Hernando Cortéz, incidentally), I'd personally suggest reading for example this and this and dumping the junk about "returned gods" and whatnot. The Aztecs sure seemed pretty motivated to try and help said "gods" concretely demonstrate their mortality, when it came down to that...

not everybody believed and i thought the high priests mostly disliked the spaniards

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Watchman

Speaking of the Conquistadors (the chap credited with leading the demolition of the Aztec empire was named Hernando Cortéz, incidentally), I'd personally suggest reading for example this and this and dumping the junk about "returned gods" and whatnot. The Aztecs sure seemed pretty motivated to try and help said "gods" concretely demonstrate their mortality, when it came down to that...

---

Of course... When the Spaniards proved themsevles to be enemies of the Aztec nation then why not? They had them in their custody? What better to sacrifice than the 'godlike' men?

It wasn't as if the Aztecs just rolled over and presented the throat. They fought, but they were still feelign the impact of the forecast. Only few conflicts have been won by factions that believed themselves to be defeated even prior to combat.

Whatever the reasons the Aztecs (and others) lost, lack of trying and motivation certainly wasn't one. It just plain tends to be kind of difficult to fight a technologically and methodically markedly superior invader who can enlist major support from your local foes, all the while suffering from very serious new diseases and internal troubles...
Did you know, when the estates and suchlike were divided after the conquests, there tend to be curiously many specimen of the previous ruling class in the surviving rolls ? Opportunism and abandoning sinking ships, it seems, are something of an universal human trait.