New units: Two fictional Mayan ships (sep 10th, 2005)

[W.i.n.t.e.r]

Btw. The Aztec called Tula the city of Quetzalcoatl not because of the plumed serpent Deity, yet after the founder of Tula, the Toltec great capital city of "Tolán" (Tollán) by Toltec king 'Quetzalcoatl' (Topiltzin Ce Acatl Quetzalcoatl). The rest is, as you clearly stated, myth.

 

[frekk]

800 BC is quite late in Olmec history. The Olmec timeline is generally accepted as being from about 1400 BC to 400 BC, and at the tail end of that period the Olmec culture was in decline (some even date the end of the Olmec as around 600 BC). Towards that latter epoch, Olmec were being eclipsed by the emergence of both Mayan and Nahuatl civilizations (for instance, Teotihuacan was emerging around 300 BC, as were the Izapa, and the Zapotec had been around as long as the Olmec; and by this time the Maya were in the late preclassic era). Anyone speaking of the origin of the feathered serpent prior to the Toltecs is simply speculating ... there are feathered serpent motifs found all over the place much earlier than the Toltec, among all the groups of the region, but what signifigance they had nobody really knows, let alone knowing precisely where the motif originated. All that is known for certain is that the first evidence of a cult based around the feathered serpent begins with the Toltec. Prior to this it might simply be a mythological animal (like the figures on the Ishtar Gate, for instance).

Nothing in your quote contradicts any of this, except that they speculate (clearly qualified as "probably") that the feathered serpent originated in Olmec times, but where it originated and what it represented at that point is unknown. Which is why I say "the Toltec originated the god, as far as we know." It's quite possible that the Toltec lord, Topiltzin Quetzalcoatl, took such a mythological animal as his totem, associating it with his reign, and the cult only emerged after his death and elevation to mythical status.

For the rest ... such as the account I've given of the Aztec conquest of Tula and the mythology surrounding it ... you may refer to the Spanish chroniclers, namely, Bernardino de Sahagin.

As for Toltec influence on the Maya, this is largely based on linguistics and archaeological work, but is so widely accepted you should not find it difficult to confirm. Some examples:

http://www.wsu.edu/~dee/CIVAMRCA/TOLTECS.HTM

http://www.mnsu.edu/emuseum/archaeology/sites/meso_america/chichenitza.html

 

[frekk]

Btw. The Aztec called Tula the city of Quetzalcoatl not because of the plumed serpent Deity

Did I say they did?

the founder of Tula, the Toltec great capital city of "Tolán" (Tollán) by Toltec king 'Quetzalcoatl' (Topiltzin Ce Acatl Quetzalcoatl).

True, but it's quite likely they both refer to the same thing. Topiltzin was probably venerated as a god either during his reign or after his death, much like many other deities originate with real-life figures.

 

[W.i.n.t.e.r]

The Olmec didn't pass on the feathered serpent to anyone.

Excuse me, but do you read your own typings? As far as nothing more profound is known about the early Toltec and their connection to even earlier cults surrounding plumed serpent deities the "as far as we know" approach is not anything more but unfounded speculation, as is mine. Hence, pray do stay with the historic facts, findings and first and foremost- with the timeline. What is also proven by findings is that the Toltec rituals, including sacrificial offerings were taken on from the Aztec (amongst others). Also the linguistic pattern suggest that the follow-up civilizations adherred to it accordingly. "We" however also know that the manner of the cult changed in very dramatic ways even in Toltec times (Black Sun God veneration, etc) and beyond to the changes in practition of the Aztec rituals. Why is it thus carved in stone (which clearly isn't - at least not in any Meso-American one found by today) that the Toltecs should have invented Quetzalcoatl as such.

This having been stated makes it clear that while you accurately state the (late time) Toltec cult surrounding the plumed serpent god, you also fail to reveal any information on the origins of the cult. And this brings me along to the point I made earlier but you didn't realize- The Timeline:
800 BC: The Toltecs existed around 1100 years after the Olmec prime years and the first known aparitions of the Plumed Serpent be that "Quetzalcoatl" by name or any different. Findings and scripture prove that most Meso-American civilizations and even individual sub-tribes that venerated it had their own name and local cult-specific particularities. And it is proven that the Toltecs borrowed the image, figure and veneration of the plumed serpent as a supernatural deity.

Conclusion:
May the Toltecs have developed a different cult from their predecessors, the one of "Quetzalcoatl" or not, the Toltecs did not invent the Feathered Serpent Quetzalcoatl (the name means Plumed Snake by the way). The oldest findings of this mythical creature are of Olmec origin. So unless anyone comes up with a Toltec finding that precedes that of the feathered snake of La gran Venta, the Toltecs can never have invented the feathered snake or its veneration as a supernatural entity! I'm sorry to say but your were scientificaly and practicaly wrong.

 

[I am the Future]

these are awsome but who is rowing the cannoe?

 

[W.i.n.t.e.r]

Did I say they did?



True, but it's quite likely they both refer to the same thing. Topiltzin was probably venerated as a god either during his reign or after his death, much like many other deities originate with real-life figures.

No, you didn't (and I wasn't quoting you there, just wanted to stress the general problems about the needed separation of the historic from the mythical fact finding, as both need to be seen as a whole, yet separate in their historical content so as to provide scientific time- and topic relevent data so as to result in useable information)

 

[W.i.n.t.e.r]

these are awsome but who is rowing the cannoe?

Awww, why, the Quetzalcoatl Ship is a sailing boat... the other one is clearly rowed by unfleshed ghostly oarmen spirits...

 

[Rob (R8XFT)]

Great ships, aaglo, thanks for doing the canoe - it fits really nicely with what I'm doing in the mod .

 

[frekk]

As far as nothing more profound is known about the early Toltec and their connection to even earlier cults surrounding plumed serpent deities

You miss the point ... there's no evidence that there even were any earlier cults surrounding the feathered serpent. Just because you've got an art motif doesn't mean it's a god.

the "as far as we know" approach is not anything more but unfounded speculation

Huh? How do you figure? It's a statement of the limits of our certainty. There's nothing speculative about that.

"We" however also know that the manner of the cult changed in very dramatic ways even in Toltec times (Black Sun God veneration, etc) and beyond to the changes in practition of the Aztec rituals. Why is it thus carved in stone (which clearly isn't - at least not in any Meso-American one found by today) that the Toltecs should have invented Quetzalcoatl as such.

It's not - there's no telling what might be uncovered in the future, but then again, it may well be that there simply wasn't a feathered serpent god prior to the Toltecs. It's just that there's no evidence that there's any earlier cult; it's also quite suggested by the historical record that Topiltzin was not just the founder of Tula, but of a cult as well.

This having been stated makes it clear that while you accurately state the (late time) Toltec cult surrounding the plumed serpent god, you also fail to reveal any information on the origins of the cult.

But before Topiltzin, there isn't any information on the origins of the cult! That could well be because there simply wasn't one - nobody alive knows whether there was or not. There's alot of speculation about what, exactly, the feathered serpent means before the Toltec. It could be a mythic animal, a stylized symbol of authority (such as the lion rampant on a European coat-of-arms), a god, a servant of the gods ... who knows. There's some art objects, which may represent deities or they may represent simply a mythic animal - many other arts do represent simply mythic animals. There's simply nothing to say about the feathered serpent cult prior to the Toltecs. (Though I'm surprised you havent brought up the temple in Teotihuacan yet).

Findings and scripture prove that most Meso-American civilizations and even individual sub-tribes that venerated it had their own name and local cult-specific particularities. And it is proven that the Toltecs borrowed the image, figure and veneration of the plumed serpent as a supernatural deity:

Proven by who? What's your source here? Did you write this yourself? Or is this another wikipedia quote that you're afraid to link to? (Yes, I located that. You really should read the discussion page. ).

Scripture about cultures before the Toltec?

You're joking right? What specific primary sources are you referring to here?

Or are you just unilaterally declaring it's "proven" for fun?

The only thing that's proven is that the Toltec borrowed the image, not the veneration. Though it's quite likely that at least by the time of Teotihuacan, the feathered serpent had some kind of religious signifigance (though whether it was a god or not, is unknown).

This is about as much as we know about the Teotihuacan version, from inscriptions found at the Mayan site of Copan, thought to have been founded by a Teotihuacan lord:

http://www.mesoweb.com/features/findings/founder_text.html

"18 Serpent" would be a day-name, and could very well refer to an important historical figure or even some sort of prophecy. One thing is sure, "we" don't know. In the context it appears it could well simply be a heraldric figure of authority (like the lion rampant), with some connection to an individual or perhaps an event.

(Btw, what is your fascination with "we"? How else are we supposed to talk of anything? "We" cannot talk of what "we" do not know!)

May the Toltecs have developed a different cult from their predecessors, the one of "Quetzalcoatl" or not, the Toltecs did not invent the Feathered Serpent Quetzalcoatl (the name means Plumed Snake by the way). The oldest findings of this mythical creature was of Olmec origin. So unless noone comes up with a Toltec finding that precedes that of the feathered snake of La gran Venta, the Toltecs can never have invented the feathered snake! Sorry to say but you are scientificaly and practicaly wrong here.

This is an awful misinterpretation of what I've said. The Olmec are not even known to have originated the feathered serpent, for all we know it could have been another group like the Zapotec who passed it on. But whatever the case, all we know for sure is that they made art objects which included a feathered serpent, and that motif was found all over the place. But whether a cult venerated it or not? Nobody knows, there's no evidence that such a cult existed. Certainly the veneration of a feathered serpent god doesn't appear for certain in the Mayan culture until the time of Toltec influence, even though there are earlier feathered serpent artworks. But it's not proven there's any cult around them.

The closest thing to a feathered serpent cult before Topiltzin (or, perhaps, his father Mixcoatl) is the so-called "Temple of Quetzalcoatl" at Teotihuacan, which indicates that the feathered serpent had some sort of religious signifigance to those people - whoever they were. But was it worshipped, or just an agent of the gods of some sort, like Odin's wolves or Hecate's hounds? Nobody knows. There's no written records, unfortunately. Sahugin never found out.

What is also proven by findings is that the Toltec rituals, including sacrificial offerings were taken on from the Aztec (amongst others).

Lol! The Toltec were pretty much gone by the time the Aztec came to power,and were certainly practicing human sacrifice before the Aztec even arrived in the Valley of Mexico. Where, exactly, human sacrifice originated for the Mesoamerican cultures is unknown, but the Mayans (for one) were practicing it centuries before either the Toltec or the Aztec existed. The Aztec, however, practiced it in on an entirely different scale than any of their predecessors ...

(the name means Plumed Snake by the way).

It most certainly does not. It means Quetzal Snake, quetzal being a bird whose feathers were highly prized, a valuable trade good for use in arts of various kinds.

 

[W.i.n.t.e.r]

Some writers have alleged that the Toltecs introduced the cult* of Quetzalcoatl, the plumed serpent. This is certainly not so, as this deity was commonly depicted throughout Mesoamerica for centuries earlier, going back to Olmec times.

To clarify; the point still is: The Toltecs did not invent the Feathered Serpent nor its cult (*see above), and took it from previous civilizations. I NEVER claimed the Olmec venerated 'a'god Quetzalcoatl, but that the Olmecs had the Feathered Serpent 1100 years before the Toltecs could have ever come up with anything like "Quetzalcoatl". As far as science knows Olmec are the originators (or at least people that dwelled during the High Olmec time). I cannot even understand where and why you dragged the poor Mayas forth and the Teotihuacan Temple- they are irrelevant mostly due to the fact that the Olmecs were carving the plumed serpent long before late Teotihuacan time. The only relevant issue about it is that by mentioning Teotihuacan had the Feathered Snake before the Toltec did portrait theirs, you yourself prove wrong your earlier statement about the Toltecs being the first Quetzalcoatl worshippers.

(...)sin embargo su primera aparición inequivoca de Quetzalcoatl ocurrio en Teotihuacan, la cultura teotihuacana domino durante siglos el altiplano mexicano.

Translation: (...) the first indisputeable aparition of Quetzalcoatl took place in Teotihuacan, the Teotihuacan culture dominating the Mexican high plains for centuries. - So you are saying you were wrong but not that much wrong

Huh? How do you figure? It's a statement of the limits of our certainty. There's nothing speculative about that.

First of all: Who is "We" (or do you always speak of yourself in the second person plural). As far as I am concerned I am talking to "you", to frekk, not to a mysterious "we" entity. By claiming that "we" (plural) collectively know (or in your particular case don't know) something you are trying to make "me" (singular) seem like not belonging to the apparently global community of all "we" that we know. This is also the reason I addressed it: I call your comments "unfounded speculation" since you fail to back up your knowledge and keep comming up with "as far as we know". If that is the way they tought you to write reports for highschool (unfortunately your Profile doesn't feature any data on your age, hence now you in turn have me speculating for once) just claiming that the world turns in the direction you claim isn't going to take you far at any higher level without backup. And the more often you claim that "for all 'we' know" it becomes apparent that you (as in 'we') don't know very much. My suggestion, read more present literature and travel to Mexico once in a while, then you should be up to date and "know more".

Proven by who? What's your source here? Did you write this yourself? Scripture about cultures before the Toltec? You're joking right? What specific primary sources are you referring to here? Or are you just unilaterally declaring it's "proven" for fun?

One of the best known middle to late Olmec sites, La Venta in the state of Tabasco, contains representations of several apparently mythological figures. These representations, generally dating from 800 to 400 BCE, include a feathered serpent, a man of crops with corn growing out of his head and a rain spirit in the guise of a dwarf or child. Similar images are frequently found in the myths of later cultures in the area. The mythological figure of the feathered or plumed serpent depicted throughout North America and Mesoamerica probably originated in Olmec times. In later traditions the Quetzal Feathered Serpent deity was known as the inventor of books and the calendar, the giver of maize corn to mankind, and sometime as a symbol of death and resurrection, often associated with the planet Venus. The Maya knew him as Kukulkán; the Quiché as Gukumatz. The Toltecs portrayed the plumed serpent as Quetzalcoatl, the rival of Tezcatlipoca. Art and iconography clearly demonstrate the importance of the Feathered Serpent Deity in Classic era as well as Olmec art.

Since you are unilaterally declaring other people wrong without yourself issueing anything more than unfounded "no- it isn't so" I am happy to provide more back-up primary and secondary information. (As you should know the obtaining of primary information is only possible by going there oneself- so how am I supposed to give you primary sources, you joker

The Olmec were the first Mesoamericans to develop a hieroglyphic script for their language, the earliest known example dating from 650 BC.

...scripture even before the Toltecs -weird huh- so much to secondary sources- as for primary sources I can tell you that I was there April 2005. On the other hand I little back up information in your posts. Did you make those up now?

Conclusion:
Even if the Zapotec culture brought forth the Feathered Serpent, it is still a diety that originated over a millenia before the Toltecs existed as such. And as long as no even older Zapotec findings are dug out the Olmec civilization features the oldestknown depiction of the feathered serpent- nothing of which you say wrongs my statement that the Olmec made the oldest known feathered serpent known to science.

 

[W.i.n.t.e.r]

It most certainly does not. It means Quetzal Snake, quetzal being a bird whose feathers were highly prized, a valuable trade good for use in arts of various kinds.

Ok Mr. do we also know the Nahuatl word for "plume" or "feather" then? (Hint: Quetzal is not a name-word in Nahuatl but a descriptive adverb; the Nahuatl name for the bird in question is "Quetzalin" (Aztec Nahuatl) or "Quetzaltototl" (Classical Nahuatl).

Edit: Your additions to the previous text are quite good. What time is it over there where you are seated? -here it its already 8:20 am... can't believe I stayed up to write about Olmecs and Toltecs and the lot... if I may seem harsh at times then just 'cause I just love these kind of arguments. Aaglo is gonna kill us.

 

[frekk]

No, you miss the point here: The Toltecs did not invent the Feathered Serpent, and took it from previous civilizations, you keep repeating it yourself.

If I make a point of noting just that, how am I missing the point? How bizarre.

I NEVER claimed the Olmec were venerating 'a'god Quetzalcoatl.

Then what on Earth are you disputing?

You are telling me Islam (Aztec) invented Allah after the image of the Christian God Almighty- and that Christianity (Toltec) is the origin of the veneration of God, sitting on his thone in the heavens, creator of Earth, etc etc. And when someone tells you that Christianity borrows its morals from Jave and the looks from Zeus you tell me that there is no proof.

Colour me confused.

The only relevant issue about it is that by mentioning Teotihuacan had the Feathered Snake before the Toltec did portrait theirs, you yourself prove wrong your earlier statement about the Toltecs being the first Quetzalcoatl worshippers.

No. As I've mentioned over and over, an image (even one with religious signifigance) doesn't mean that it was a god. The Toltecs didn't invent the image, but they are the first group that worshipped it as a god, as far as current knowledge goes.

This is also the reason I addressed it: I call your comments "unfounded speculation" since you fail to back up your knowledge and keep comming up with "as far as we know".

How am I supposed to back up something that doesn't exist? Would you like me to disprove God while I'm at it? You could claim that the Olmec were using power tools, should I have to disprove that? You're beginning to sound like Von Daniken. It's up to you to prove your claims. For what I have claimed (such as the Aztec conquest of Tula or Toltec influence in Chichen Itza), I've offered you plenty - links, references to the Spanish chroniclers, and so on. You've quoted a wikipedia article written by one guy who admitted he had little idea of what he was doing.

(unfortunately your Profile doesn't feature any data on your age, hence now you in turn have me speculating for once)

32. Wandering into ad hominems, are we?

My suggestion, read more present literature

What like bad wikipedia articles?

I've read commentary on Sahagin, translations of Diaz, and all the interpretations from Prescott right up to the late Schele and Freidel. I don't even have to get up from my chair right now to check with most of them. None of them, of course, speak of any Olmec worship of a feathered serpent deity simply because there's nothing much to talk about ...

The following should answer it: Since you are unilaterally declaring other people wrong without yourself issueing anything more than unfounded "no- it isn't so" I am happy to provide more back-up primary and secondary information. (As you should know the obtaining of primary information is only possible by going there by oneself- so how am I supposed to give you primary sources, you joker are you trying to test me?)

I gave you primary sources. What do you think the inscriptions at Copan are? There was a link to the images at that site, and their location, in case you'd like to go see for yourself. It's there, and it's primary, in case you think I went and put up fake photos and articles on Mesoweb, just to fool you.

You can, however, provide reference to specific artifacts or art objects which would support your claim, or scholarly interpretations of the codexes. I see you've quoted a general article from Brittanica, there are some sources mentioned there, one of which I'm familiar with. I suggest you go to the source for a more in-depth explanation. You might even come across the Vision Serpent, which would bolster your argument a little (even thought the Vision Serpent wasn't a true god that had priests etc, more of a spiritual phenomena).

Now look at that- scripture even before the Toltecs -how strange- so much to secondary sources

The Mayan inscriptions are not "scripture" they don't even form a narrative on the subject. There are Mayan narratives, but that isn't one of them ... it's just a name, and a date. It's no more a scripture than "Bob wuz here 1976"

Back to your last paragraph: Even if the Zapotec culture brought forth the Feathered Serpent, it is still a diety that originated over a millenia before the Toltecs existed as such.

Except that you haven't offered one iota of proof (other than endless regurgiation of a bad wiki) that it was a deity prior to Toltec times. We don't disagree about the image, although Olmec depictions are much different than any of those associated with Kukulkan, Quetzalcoatl, or 18 Serpent. The most famous shows a serpent being used as a mount by a shaman or lord:

This image is from La Venta, and is known as Monument 19. Some suggest this might be related to the Vision Serpent, as the shaman carries a basket which might contain the hallucinogenics used in association with Vision Serpent rituals. The other possibility is that he might be holding a stingray spine in one hand, and a bloodletting basket in the other - which, if true, would strongly suggest similarity with the Vision Serpent, since this was another method of summoning one (they pierce their genitals with the spine, draw a knotted rope through to collect blood, and then burn the rope in a basket - the smoke opens a pathway and materializes the Vision Serpent, and the priest is transported to the otherworld to commune with the gods).

The Vision Serpent, however, is not a god: a Vision Serpent was a mythical creature used as a conveyance between the shamans and the gods or the otherworld. It may be completely unrelated to Kukulkan. Linda Schele is probably a good introduction to Vision Serpent myths, either Forest of Kings or Blood of Kings, I think both have discussions on the subject.

Ok Mr. what is the Nahuatl word for "plume" or "feather" then (for all "we" know)?

Nahuatl isn't a dead language. It's still spoken by some native groups in northern Mexico. There are online dictionaries and even courses. Go look up quetzal if you wish. I don't speak the whole language, so I don't know what the word for plume or feather is. But 'quetzal' is still used as the word for that particular species of bird, even in English. Click here to learn about the quetzal bird. Quetzalcoatl is certainly tied to this bird, as it had great spiritual signifigance in the Mesoamerican world.

Originally Posted by Britannica
One of the best known middle to late Olmec sites, La Venta in the state of Tabasco, contains representations of several apparently mythological figures. These representations, generally dating from 800 to 400 BCE, include a feathered serpent, a man of crops with corn growing out of his head and a rain spirit in the guise of a dwarf or child. Similar images are frequently found in the myths of later cultures in the area.
The mythological figure of the feathered or plumed serpent depicted throughout North America and Mesoamerica probably originated in Olmec times.

I highlighted the relevant portions for you. You should read more carefully. Brittanica is written for the general reader, and is typically quite brief, noting several popular speculations. Nothing wrong with this, especially when they are careful to note speculation, as speculation. Brittanica never uses the words "apparently" or "probably" for the hell of it. If there is any question about the veracity of the knowledge, Brittanica makes this clear, as they have rightly done in this case.

To clarify this whole point, the connections between various serpent represenations aren't necessarily the same thing at all, and don't necessarily derive from each other (though it would be difficult to assert there isn't likely some connection between the La Venta serpent and the Vision Serpents of the Maya, for several reasons relating to artistic styles evident in Monument 19). For instance, the Maya have a bat god named Zotz (or Camazotz). The Moche of Peru also had a bat god, which was their lord of sacrifices. But the two were never in contact with each other. Things CAN develop independantly and seem similar, even though they are not. If the Moche and the Mayans had met up, they would have both had bat gods that they had each developed independantly, and people would be striving to show some sort of connection that just wasn't there.

One might also point to other examples. Did the Olmec carving at La Venta come from Chinese dragons? No! No more than the Iroquois eagle as a symbol of state came from the Roman eagle as a symbol of state. Or what about the Iroqouis wizard Atotarho who had hair made of snakes, anything to do with Medusa? Of course not! These are examples of things that are largely accepted to be impossible correlations, things that developed independantly. Things can develop independantly and nonetheless bear great resemblance. The links between La Venta's serpent, the Vision Serpents, 18 Serpent, and Quetzalcoatl/Kukulkan are by no means impossible ... but on the other hand, it is by no means certain that they have anything to do with each other, either.

 

[la_dav]

Nice units!!

 

[aaglo]

@Frekk & Winter,
Altough slightly off-topic, all this info would be very interesting, if I would just know what in there is true

So, should the bigger ship be called Kukulkan Ship instead of Quetzalcoatl Ship?

 

[W.i.n.t.e.r]

To clarify this whole point, the connections between various serpent represenations aren't necessarily the same thing at all, and don't necessarily derive from each other (though it would be difficult to assert there isn't likely some connection between the La Venta serpent and the Vision Serpents of the Maya, for several reasons relating to artistic styles evident in Monument 19). (...) The links between La Venta's serpent, the Vision Serpents, 18 Serpent, and Quetzalcoatl/Kukulkan are by no means impossible ... but on the other hand, it is by no means certain that they have anything to do with each other, either.

This would seem like a good ultima ratio, since either way could have been, though it is not certain or definitive.

About the renaming, I'd say that depends on you plans on any particular Aztec ships. Since it is fictous anyways it may well pose for a generic Mesoamerican plumed serpent vessel- what say you, frekk?

 

[Gojira54]

... it may well pose for a generic Mesoamerican plumed serpent vessel...

That is EXACTLY how I plan on using it

 

[Quinzy]

this arguement is pointless. it was probably only called "quetzacoatl" ship for a name. you can call it whatever you want!!!

 

[Sildo]

@Quinzy: Are you kidding!? When people write several pages on a subject it's important now wether or not it was before

 

[frekk]

@Frekk & Winter,
Altough slightly off-topic, all this info would be very interesting, if I would just know what in there is true

So, should the bigger ship be called Kukulkan Ship instead of Quetzalcoatl Ship?

If it's Mayan, Kukulcan would be more appropriate. If its Aztec, or generic for all the Mesoamericans, Quetzalcoatl is probably a better choice.

By the way, you are the Master Shipwright aaglo!

All these Mesoamerican ships are fun. I love the whole "what if" thing. Great job!

 

[The Last Conformist]

How come I hadn't seen this one before?