| FORUM | ARCHIVE |                    | TOTAL QUIZ RESULT |


  New Posts New Posts RSS Feed - Amerindian architecture
  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Events   Register Register  Login Login


Welcome stranger, click here to read about some of the great benefits of registering for a free account with us and joining us in our global online community.


Amerindian architecture

 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <1234>
Author
Carcharodon View Drop Down
Tsar
Tsar


Joined: 04 May 2007
Location: Northern Europe
Status: Offline
Points: 4971
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Carcharodon Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 06 Jan 2011 at 23:37
Back to Amerindian architecture:
 
 
An interesting example of the inner structure of a building in the Xingu.
Back to Top
Sponsored Links


Back to Top
gcle2003 View Drop Down
WorldHistoria Master
WorldHistoria Master
Avatar
PM Honorary Member

Joined: 06 Dec 2004
Location: Luxembourg
Status: Offline
Points: 13238
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote gcle2003 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 07 Jan 2011 at 00:12
Originally posted by Carcharodon Carcharodon wrote:

Originally posted by gcle2003 gcle2003 wrote:

No they don't. In fact the medieval churches helped the process of leavening elites by providing channels for upward social mobility, as well as being the chief providers and organisers of charitable works. The civil structure of medieval Europe represented the exploitation by elites of subjected masses, but not the church structure.
 
Rationalize how much you want. If you do not want to see the opressive structures in the christian churches you will not see them, regardless of how much evidence you will see.
Why don't you support that with arguments? It may be enough for you to parrot the slogans of your leaders, but for the rest of us it would be interesting to see on what basis you make these remarks.
 
Tell us for instance on what evidence you convict George Fox of being an elitist who exploited the masses.
 
Or John Wesley. Or St Francis, come to that.
 
That you can condemn such people without even being willing to discuss why what they did was so terrible is essentially disgusting.
Citizen of Ankh-Morpork.

Never believe anything until it has been officially denied - Sir Humphrey Appleby, 1984.

Back to Top
Carcharodon View Drop Down
Tsar
Tsar


Joined: 04 May 2007
Location: Northern Europe
Status: Offline
Points: 4971
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Carcharodon Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 07 Jan 2011 at 00:29
In this thread I want to discuss Amerindian architecture.
Back to Top
pinguin View Drop Down
WorldHistoria Master
WorldHistoria Master
Avatar

Joined: 29 Sep 2006
Status: Offline
Points: 15234
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote pinguin Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 07 Jan 2011 at 01:09
Originally posted by gcle2003 gcle2003 wrote:

Actually no it isn't. But then you don't understand anything do you? You're just interested in maligning Christians.

I bet only bad Christians should be maligned, like Torquemada or the witch hunters.

I preffer the good Christians, like Father Las Casas and the Jesuits that founded missions and protected the Indians in South America.
Back to Top
gcle2003 View Drop Down
WorldHistoria Master
WorldHistoria Master
Avatar
PM Honorary Member

Joined: 06 Dec 2004
Location: Luxembourg
Status: Offline
Points: 13238
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote gcle2003 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 07 Jan 2011 at 02:50
Fair enough.
Citizen of Ankh-Morpork.

Never believe anything until it has been officially denied - Sir Humphrey Appleby, 1984.

Back to Top
drgonzaga View Drop Down
King
King
Avatar
Plus Ultra

Joined: 02 Oct 2005
Status: Offline
Points: 6261
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote drgonzaga Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 07 Jan 2011 at 07:40
Originally posted by Carcharodon Carcharodon wrote:

In this thread I want to discuss Amerindian architecture.
 
So far, there has been little of anything that could be called architecture from your end since "huts" constitute "buildings" only in the widest sense of the word. And then there is the comment you made over the Codex illustration--
 
"something we've not seen hundreds of times"
 
--to which I can only say: Really? You are that familiar with the old codices? Now as for huts well from my perspective, I have seen those thousands of times in all of their variations, be it a Taino bohio, a Totonac chiki or a Navajo hogan. So if you have something to say that has not already been said from the 16th century on, then you had best say it rather than using the theme as an excuse to spout your fractured figments of historical inversions.


Edited by drgonzaga - 07 Jan 2011 at 07:41
Honi soit qui mal y pense
Back to Top
pinguin View Drop Down
WorldHistoria Master
WorldHistoria Master
Avatar

Joined: 29 Sep 2006
Status: Offline
Points: 15234
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote pinguin Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 07 Jan 2011 at 07:51
Originally posted by drgonzaga drgonzaga wrote:

 
So far, there has been little of anything that could be called architecture from your end since "huts" constitute "buildings" only in the widest sense of the word. And then there is the comment you made over the Codex illustration--

Yes. The examples has not been selected with care. In my case, I shown the Mapuche house architecture, which is very interesting, but is not a permanent house.

If we study Teotihuacan or Inca civilian buildings, I bet we could really speak about permanent architecture. What about the idea you start with Teotihuacan now?, for a change.
Back to Top
drgonzaga View Drop Down
King
King
Avatar
Plus Ultra

Joined: 02 Oct 2005
Status: Offline
Points: 6261
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote drgonzaga Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 07 Jan 2011 at 07:52
As for the Pinguin and his assertion that I am not discussing architecture when underscoring form, utility and purpose, then why discuss anything at all if the intent is simply to overload bandwidth with pictures? If we are going to analyze ceremonial centers for what they are not--urban architecture--then such an exercise is meaningless. Address structures that are more coherent in that respect outside the context of the Maya [e.g. Cuzco or even a Hopi pueblo] as well as realize that even Tenochtitlan was not a "city" per se but an intricate interconnection of autonomous neighborhoods reflecting selective patterns and functions or even the impact of Teotihuacan on later Aztec pretensions? The overload with Internet photography is the actual straw-man here serving as little more than pretext for the forwarding of very parochial views.

Edited by drgonzaga - 07 Jan 2011 at 08:09
Honi soit qui mal y pense
Back to Top
pinguin View Drop Down
WorldHistoria Master
WorldHistoria Master
Avatar

Joined: 29 Sep 2006
Status: Offline
Points: 15234
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote pinguin Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 07 Jan 2011 at 07:53
I am interested in urban architecture. Go ahead, post your knowledge.
Back to Top
Carcharodon View Drop Down
Tsar
Tsar


Joined: 04 May 2007
Location: Northern Europe
Status: Offline
Points: 4971
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Carcharodon Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 07 Jan 2011 at 20:32
Originally posted by drgonzaga 
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>So far, there has been little of anything that could be called architecture from your end since huts constitute buildings only in the widest sense of the word. And then there is the comment you made over the Codex illustration </DIV>[/QUOTE drgonzaga
 
So far, there has been little of anything that could be called architecture from your end since huts constitute buildings only in the widest sense of the word. And then there is the comment you made over the Codex illustration 
[/QUOTE wrote:


 
Well, huts are also architecture, and they vary a lot in form, size, shape, material and also function. Also they can be seen in a context of villages, and cluster of villages, where things as location, integration in the landscape, size, relative position and orientat
 
Well, huts are also architecture, and they vary a lot in form, size, shape, material and also function. Also they can be seen in a context of villages, and cluster of villages, where things as location, integration in the landscape, size, relative position and orientation have a meaning in political, religious and social sense.
And ofcourse these huts have different names and designations by the people who use them (and which are often confused by outsiders).
 
 


Edited by Carcharodon - 07 Jan 2011 at 20:37
Back to Top
drgonzaga View Drop Down
King
King
Avatar
Plus Ultra

Joined: 02 Oct 2005
Status: Offline
Points: 6261
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote drgonzaga Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 07 Jan 2011 at 21:52
Originally posted by Carcharodon Carcharodon wrote:

Well, huts are also architecture, and they vary a lot in form, size, shape, material and also function. Also they can be seen in a context of villages, and cluster of villages, where things as location, integration in the landscape, size, relative position and orientation have a meaning in political, religious and social sense.
And of course these huts have different names and designations by the people who use them (and which are often confused by outsiders).
 
For the last time, Carcharadon, I will ask you to provide a reasoned presentation in defense of the assertions made for your expository discourse. The above hemming-and-hawing can only be described as an evasive refusal to confront the obvious truth here: you have not a clue as to what you pretend to talk about! Huts are not architecture since the latter term implies a measure of permanence and stability with a "worked" medium. A tipi (tepee) while an example of remarkable ingenuity is not a building no matter how many twists and turns you devise to make it such. And as for the statement over "different names", can you not see how the uttering of such a statement makes you appear a damned fool!?! They have different names because of different languages! Further, no matter how much jargon you cast about (e.g.  context of villages, and cluster blah blah blah), the fact still remains that what is being discussed are rudimentary arrangements common to the species as social animals!
 
In fact, the kindest "take" one can make of your incessant chatter is that you are being patronising toward your objects of interest. Rather than accept things at their face value you reshape them within the context of contemporary culture. As any Seminole will tell you a chiki may be a cultural symbol but I would not want to live in one, of course we never "lived" in them to begin with given the climate since daily life took place in Nature. A house today is much more and in a sense Modern Man has become much more of a troglodyte in that sense since to leave one's house implies obligational drudgery.
 
What amazes me in all of this is the steadfast refusal of some to accept the differences free of prejudice and to see people instead of things that must be explained in all sorts of defensive postures that are little more than malarkey!


Edited by drgonzaga - 07 Jan 2011 at 21:54
Honi soit qui mal y pense
Back to Top
Carcharodon View Drop Down
Tsar
Tsar


Joined: 04 May 2007
Location: Northern Europe
Status: Offline
Points: 4971
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Carcharodon Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 07 Jan 2011 at 22:08
Originally posted by drgonzaga drgonzaga wrote:

Originally posted by Carcharodon Carcharodon wrote:

Well, huts are also architecture, and they vary a lot in form, size, shape, material and also function. Also they can be seen in a context of villages, and cluster of villages, where things as location, integration in the landscape, size, relative position and orientation have a meaning in political, religious and social sense.
And of course these huts have different names and designations by the people who use them (and which are often confused by outsiders).
 
For the last time, Carcharadon, I will ask you to provide a reasoned presentation in defense of the assertions made for your expository discourse. The above hemming-and-hawing can only be described as an evasive refusal to confront the obvious truth here: you have not a clue as to what you pretend to talk about! Huts are not architecture since the latter term implies a measure of permanence and stability with a "worked" medium.
 
Well, I used the word huts only as a simplified (and not really adequate) term for a variety of different house types and other similar structures built in perishable materials. If one shall go into details one shall ofcourse use more proper words for the different types of buildings, houses and structures.
 
Originally posted by drgonzaga drgonzaga wrote:

 
In fact, the kindest "take" one can make of your incessant chatter is that you are being patronising toward your objects of interest. Rather than accept things at their face value you reshape them within the context of contemporary culture. As any Seminole will tell you a chiki may be a cultural symbol but I would not want to live in one, of course we never "lived" in them to begin with given the climate since daily life took place in Nature. A house today is much more and in a sense Modern Man has become much more of a troglodyte in that sense since to leave one's house implies obligational drudgery.
 
Well, functions and meanings of a building do not exclude each other. One can live in a house/hut/building, and still it has a spiritual, cosmological or social meaning. Different aspects of life can be integrated into the same structure.
 


Edited by Carcharodon - 07 Jan 2011 at 22:16
Back to Top
drgonzaga View Drop Down
King
King
Avatar
Plus Ultra

Joined: 02 Oct 2005
Status: Offline
Points: 6261
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote drgonzaga Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 07 Jan 2011 at 22:18
Carch, somehow I seriously doubt you are an expert in anything "spiritual" and the evidence for that conclusion is firmly embedded in this Forum. Besides even if you do not realize it (I am being kind here), you once again have failed to respond to a direct question and instead have once again hemmed-and-hawed worse than a neophyte coutourier with a marked ignorance of style!
Honi soit qui mal y pense
Back to Top
Carcharodon View Drop Down
Tsar
Tsar


Joined: 04 May 2007
Location: Northern Europe
Status: Offline
Points: 4971
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Carcharodon Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 07 Jan 2011 at 22:43
Originally posted by drgonzaga drgonzaga wrote:

Carch, somehow I seriously doubt you are an expert in anything "spiritual" and the evidence for that conclusion is firmly embedded in this Forum. Besides even if you do not realize it (I am being kind here), you once again have failed to respond to a direct question and instead have once again hemmed-and-hawed worse than a neophyte coutourier with a marked ignorance of style!
 
It seems that you are on this thread just to try to find things that you can critizise and scorn. You are really not contributing. And in your rather confused diatribe I do not really see the question you talk about.
 
Better you contribute with something substantial about Amerindian architecture.
Back to Top
drgonzaga View Drop Down
King
King
Avatar
Plus Ultra

Joined: 02 Oct 2005
Status: Offline
Points: 6261
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote drgonzaga Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 07 Jan 2011 at 22:52
There is nothing "substantial" about Amerindian architecture other than scattered ruins illustrating its rudimentary nature within the realm of the monumental. Baldly frank but true and within the realm of knowledge it is but a curiosity akin to the entrancement of the philatelist with the Penny Black. Any other conclusion is possible solely if one wishes to play the role of pretentious poppinjay perorating about the glories of raw stone and stucco. And boy, can you get stucco [all apologies to Groucho].
 
I am a historian and not an antiquarian enchanted with the detritus of the past and once you realize the difference then you will really have "grown up".
Honi soit qui mal y pense
Back to Top
Carcharodon View Drop Down
Tsar
Tsar


Joined: 04 May 2007
Location: Northern Europe
Status: Offline
Points: 4971
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Carcharodon Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 07 Jan 2011 at 23:12
Originally posted by drgonzaga drgonzaga wrote:

There is nothing "substantial" about Amerindian architecture other than scattered ruins illustrating its rudimentary nature within the realm of the monumental. Baldly frank but true and within the realm of knowledge it is but a curiosity akin to the entrancement of the philatelist with the Penny Black. Any other conclusion is possible solely if one wishes to play the role of pretentious poppinjay perorating about the glories of raw stone and stucco. And boy, can you get stucco [all apologies to Groucho].
 
I am a historian and not an antiquarian enchanted with the detritus of the past and once you realize the difference then you will really have "grown up".
 
The only thing that indeed is not substantial is your meaningless posts on this thread.
Back to Top
drgonzaga View Drop Down
King
King
Avatar
Plus Ultra

Joined: 02 Oct 2005
Status: Offline
Points: 6261
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote drgonzaga Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 07 Jan 2011 at 23:28
That you failed to grasp the full implications of the post does not deny it meaning. Its meaning is quite obvious to all except the hopelessly obtuse.
Honi soit qui mal y pense
Back to Top
pinguin View Drop Down
WorldHistoria Master
WorldHistoria Master
Avatar

Joined: 29 Sep 2006
Status: Offline
Points: 15234
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote pinguin Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 08 Jan 2011 at 09:39
Originally posted by drgonzaga drgonzaga wrote:

There is nothing "substantial" about Amerindian architecture other than scattered ruins illustrating its rudimentary nature within the realm of the monumental. ...


Give me a break.
First, let me distinguish matters. In the Americas there were lot of different societies with different degrees of development. In is just ridiculous to put all these societies in the same bag, and just to put the label: "Amerindian architecture". In fact Indian Architecture sound such racist as Negro Architecture, because the truth is there is nothing in common between the huts of the Land of Fire's Onas, or the teepees from the Praries with the Anazasi appartment buildings or the Teotihuacan neigbourhood.

Now, if you believe there is nothing "substantial" about the architecture of the most developed peoples in the Americas is simply because you aren't informed, you are biassed or your brain is not well-wired to understand certain things.

These are Teotihuacan apartment buildings, for example. A lot better than the huts Galicians lived during the Middle Age. That for sure.







Edited by pinguin - 08 Jan 2011 at 09:39
Back to Top
drgonzaga View Drop Down
King
King
Avatar
Plus Ultra

Joined: 02 Oct 2005
Status: Offline
Points: 6261
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote drgonzaga Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 08 Jan 2011 at 12:28
You can play those games with the uninformed Pinguin, but your so-called "apartments" are nothing of the sort besides I have been at Atetelco and I can assure you we are not discussing a classic insula nor is there novelty here since the excavations date from the 1940s. Calling them "palaces" as well is but a convenience in nomenclature for these complexes have definite associations given their accompanying art. We may surmise all we want (for instance the murals in the Northwest quadrant are associated with warrior groups [coyote and jaguar]). However, you are raising something that is not new in the least even in the context of All Empires as you very well know. Nearly two years ago (exactly 23 months or so) edgewaters promoted the topic using the self-same photograph and floor-plan you now foist. Don't recall? Why here is a prod to your memory:
 
 
To save you further embarrassment I will not go into your response, aw the heck with it...here's what you wrote in reply:
 
"Urban centers existed and some were very large. Chan Chan in Peru probably had 200.000 people. However, in most of the americas, beyond the monuments, the dwelings for people were made of wood or mud bricks rather than stone. Mayan, Peruvians and American cities were very likely made of wood and mud, so after a few centuries only remains the stone monuments"
 
Nothing cast into the Internet ever disappears! 

Honi soit qui mal y pense
Back to Top
pinguin View Drop Down
WorldHistoria Master
WorldHistoria Master
Avatar

Joined: 29 Sep 2006
Status: Offline
Points: 15234
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote pinguin Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 08 Jan 2011 at 20:37
Certainly, that was my reply.

But what is your point, Drgonzaga? The Americas had architecture and civil engineering projects of large scale. Machu Picchu, Tenochtitlean, Teotihuacan, Chan Chan, the Anazasi buildings, the Mayan ceremonial centers, the Port of Tulum are a proof of that.

I wonder why do you insist in downplaying it?

Recognizing the merits and achievements of the Americas won't humilliate your pride on the achievements of Europe. If you think so, just turn your switch off.












Edited by pinguin - 08 Jan 2011 at 20:38
Back to Top
drgonzaga View Drop Down
King
King
Avatar
Plus Ultra

Joined: 02 Oct 2005
Status: Offline
Points: 6261
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote drgonzaga Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 09 Jan 2011 at 00:09
Don't be facetious or worse slyly insulting! You very well know what the point is and it is a simple one: Your thread is pointless at three levels--1) It has been said before on AE; 2) There have been few if any startling discoveries in archaeology that would reshape established interpretation; and 3) hagiography for the purpose of inflation belongs in the press room and is not a function for historical insight. All of your talk about merit and achievements is naught but a stalking horse so as to provide opportunity for lauds more appropriate on a celebrity awards show than in any historical analysis. Frankly, despite your participation in the public assault on Carcharadon for expression of myopic biases, you yourself share the identical trait. My advise: Can the spam and move on, the world has!
Honi soit qui mal y pense
Back to Top
pinguin View Drop Down
WorldHistoria Master
WorldHistoria Master
Avatar

Joined: 29 Sep 2006
Status: Offline
Points: 15234
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote pinguin Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 09 Jan 2011 at 00:54
Excelent analysis, but you attract criticism. I wonder why you don't contribute on the topic? Instead, you waste your time and knowledge in crashing fellow forum posters.

Come on, Drgonzaga, calm down and show us all you know about the architecture of the Americas. Something you certainly know on the topic. We wait for your enlighted oppinion on the topic.


Edited by pinguin - 09 Jan 2011 at 00:55
Back to Top
drgonzaga View Drop Down
King
King
Avatar
Plus Ultra

Joined: 02 Oct 2005
Status: Offline
Points: 6261
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote drgonzaga Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 09 Jan 2011 at 09:00
The problem, Pinguin, lies not in appreciating the artistic and constructional adeptness of Amerindian artisans and craftsmen, but in the malarkey generated by the "flavor of the month club" among those that should know better. With respect to just the Maya, if one looks at the "track records" set by both archaeologists and anthropologists, the conclusions are not pretty, in fact they are awful. And as Richard Wilk commented long ago ["The Ancient Maya and the Political Present" in Journal of Anthropological Research (JAR. 1986) 41:3, p. 307-326], assessments of the Maya are little more than subjective opinions projecting contemporary American (read as all and not just the US) political concerns upon the Maya and their past. Little has changed given the fact that today even the eco-freaks bring up "destruction of the environment by careless Maya" as an early example and explanation for what awaits us all and others mutter about climate change as the proper rationale. Therein the reason for my vehemence with your posits since you are approaching the Amerind from your own contemporary political milieu. Even if one moves into the realm of the cultural the same shibboleth of the contemporary haunts. Organization suffered as a result of internecine constant warfare blah, blah, blah and in essence the Maya become irrelevant and are turned into nothing more than examples for the current "theory" being pushed. No one looks upon them as people and further a people that have had a continuous existance through the millennia. We are looking upon their ancient past and losing sight of their own present and more or less adopting a condescemding attitude marveling at how so much could have been done by the ancestors of such miserable examples of humanity found today. Such attitudes are evil per se and foster animosity because in essence the Classic Maya constitute a part of the common heritage of Mankind. To laud the past at the expense of the present brings no glory and is but bad theater as personified by Rigoberta Menchu and her fictionalizations and it is much the same when it comes to manufacturing the past for the sake of contemporary polemics and ethnic insecurities.

Edited by drgonzaga - 09 Jan 2011 at 12:51
Honi soit qui mal y pense
Back to Top
pinguin View Drop Down
WorldHistoria Master
WorldHistoria Master
Avatar

Joined: 29 Sep 2006
Status: Offline
Points: 15234
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote pinguin Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 09 Jan 2011 at 12:40
OK. It's enough. I will take a time to psycoanalyze you, for free. Perhaps you should take professional help, because I don't doubt you really have problems in real life. Confused

Originally posted by drgonzaga drgonzaga wrote:

The problem, Pinguin, lies not in appreciating the artistic and constructional adeptness of Amerindian artisans and craftsmen,


There was no problem. We were talking about architecture in the New World before you entered the talking. The problems were brough by you, but if you'd read the thread, we didn't have any problem talking about the topic, before you jumped in.
So, again, you attacked a Straw Man.

Originally posted by drgonzaga drgonzaga wrote:


but in the malarkey generated by the "flavor of the month club" among those that should know better.


What are you talking about? So even talking about a topic you don't like generates a reaction in you? Don't you realize, Drgonzaga, that you are fighting your own phantoms? You are afraid of your own shadows?
Get focus into the topic! Caramba! Angry

Originally posted by drgonzaga drgonzaga wrote:


With respect to just the Maya, if one looks at the "track records" set by both archaeologists and anthropologists, the conclusions are not pretty, in fact they are awful.


Again, from where you get to such wild conclusions? What is awful about the Mayans? Contemporary scholars know pretty well about that society, and that's interesting. Only amateurs waste the times classifying societies in good or bad, beautiful or awful.

Originally posted by drgonzaga drgonzaga wrote:


And as Richard Wilk commented long ago ["The Ancient Maya and the Political Present" in Journal of Anthropological Research (JAR. 1986) 41:3, p. 307-326], assessments of the Maya are little more than subjective opinions projecting contemporary American (read as all and not just the US) political concerns upon the Maya and their past.


Some ignorant Americans believe the term "Hispanidad" was invented by them. Nope sir, Mayans are not an invention of Walt Disney. In any case, the work of American archeologists, linguists and schollars has been vital in discovering the Mayas. But discovering is not the same than inventing. No matter what Richard Wilk or yourself think.

Originally posted by drgonzaga drgonzaga wrote:


Little has changed given the fact that today even the eco-freaks bring up "destruction of the environment by careless Maya" as an early example and explanation for what awaits us all and others mutter about climate change as the proper rationale.


Eco-Freaks? Confused
That's something known from decades. The method of cut and burning is very destructive of the environment. You shouldn't forget Mayan societies declined, and in the search for an explanation these are valid scientific hypothesis.

Originally posted by drgonzaga drgonzaga wrote:


Therein the reason for my vehemence with your posits since you are approaching the Amerind from your own contemporary political milieu.


Don't be silly. Nobody can't approach a topic from anything but its contemporary point of view. Don't tell me you think as the Romans when you read theirs classics. Again, don't be silly.

Originally posted by drgonzaga drgonzaga wrote:


Even if one moves into the realm of the cultural the same shibboleth of the contemporary haunts.


You keep figthing your Straw Man. You are unable to approach a topic from a rational point of view. Even more, you don't respect the rest of the people here. Who do you believe you are?
Please, search for medical advice.

Originally posted by drgonzaga drgonzaga wrote:


Organization suffered as a result of internecine constant warfare blah, blah, blah and in essence the Maya become irrelevant and are turned into nothing more than examples for the current "theory" being pushed.


Because you said so? Are you God?

Originally posted by drgonzaga drgonzaga wrote:


No one looks upon them as people and further a people that have had a continuous existance through the millennia.


Who said it so? Rigoberta Menchu is not a person? Pakal wasn't a person?
What do you smoke, Drgonzaga. I bet your study of snobish phylosophy prevents you from having a more rational approach to this topic.

Originally posted by drgonzaga drgonzaga wrote:


We are looking upon their ancient past and loosing sight of their own present and more or less adopting a condescemding attitude marveling at how so much could have been done by the ancestors of such miserable examples of humanity found today.


First, you are insulting contemporary Mayan people.
Second, you assume thinking patterns in other people.
Third, you are crazy. And I am not talking in figurative ways. I am actually saying you, I detect mental problems in your speech. Otherwise, it doesn't make sense all you do is attacking Straw Men.


Originally posted by drgonzaga drgonzaga wrote:


Such attitudes are evil per se and foster animosity because in essence the Classic Maya constitute a part of the common heritage of Mankind.


Again. Who are you to assign morality to studies?
How come a thread about architecture in pre-Columbia Americas was turned by you in the media for showing YOUR politacal ideas.

Originally posted by drgonzaga drgonzaga wrote:


To laud the past at the expense of the present brings no glory and is but bad theater as personified by Rigoberta Menchu and her fictionalizations and it is much the same when it comes to manufacturing the past for the sake of contemporary polemics and ethnic insecurities.


Again, you are full of BS.
We are talking here about architecture, not about your mental problems.

Please, try to control your Straw Men hunting. Otherwise, search for advice.





Edited by pinguin - 09 Jan 2011 at 12:43
Back to Top
pinguin View Drop Down
WorldHistoria Master
WorldHistoria Master
Avatar

Joined: 29 Sep 2006
Status: Offline
Points: 15234
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote pinguin Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 09 Jan 2011 at 13:40
Inca Architecture: Machu Picchu




Edited by pinguin - 09 Jan 2011 at 13:41
Back to Top
drgonzaga View Drop Down
King
King
Avatar
Plus Ultra

Joined: 02 Oct 2005
Status: Offline
Points: 6261
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote drgonzaga Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 09 Jan 2011 at 14:01
You are my straw-man Pinguin and the fact that you have become so defensive each time I bring attention to the vacuity of your presentations has made that more than obvious. Perhaps I could be charitable and assign your grossness to your inability to master the English language--after all the slip of the we--as in "we are talking here"--in the above bombast is more than telling. By the way, you haven't uttered a single word about architecture or the means and methods for construction or any other single essential; instead, you have satisfied your superficialities with pretty pictures and meaningless yammer all to satisfy an incomprehensibe pride associated solely with your ego and its insecurities.
 
Perhaps you should do some elemental reading before waxing prolific as well as more constructive use of the Internet--
 
John B. Carlson. "Rise and Fall of the City of the Gods" in Archaeology 46:6 (1993). p.58-69.
 
George L. Cogwill. "Toward a Political History of Teotihuacan" in A. Demarest and G. Conrad, eds. ideology and Pre-Columbian Civilizations. Santa Fe: School of American Research Press, 1992. p. 87-114.
 
Doris Heyden. "Caves, Gods and Myths: World-View and Planning in Teotihuacan" in Elizabeth Benson, ed. Mesoamerican Sites and World-Views. Washington: Dumbarton Oaks, 1981, p. 1-40.
 
George Kubler. "The Iconography of the Art at Teotihuacan" in Studies in Pre-Columbian Art and Archaeology 4 (Washington: Dumbarton Oaks, 1967) {This is the old warhorse that you had best read before perorating further}
 
Rene Millon.  "Teotihuacan Studies: from 1950 to 1990 and Beyond" in J. C. Berlo, ed.  Art, ideology, and the City of Teotihuacan. Washington: Dumbarton Oaks, 1992, p. 339-430.
 
Angela Schuster. "New Tomb Found in Teotihuacan" in Archaeology 52:1 {and this one you can even retrieve in expanded form on-line: http://www.archaeology.org/online/features/mexico/index.html }
 
Saburo Sugiyama. "Iconographic Interpretation of the Temple of Quetzalcoatl in Teotihuacan" in Mexicon 9:4(1989) p. 68-74.
 
Karl Taube. "The Temple of Quetzalcoatl and the Cult of Sacred War at Teotihuacan" in Review of Economic Studies, Spring 1987. pp. 53-87.
 
Once you've read these elementary analyses for background then get back to me, until then just kindly shut-up and for the sake of the Almighty resist the urge to post these meaningless threads that contribute nothing original.

By the way...unless you've read Richard Wilk and his acute works on this very subject restrain yourself from the slurs and other inanities you so love. He is a respected tenured professor and an authority in the field of Mesoamerican Studies.


Edited by drgonzaga - 09 Jan 2011 at 14:02
Honi soit qui mal y pense
Back to Top
pinguin View Drop Down
WorldHistoria Master
WorldHistoria Master
Avatar

Joined: 29 Sep 2006
Status: Offline
Points: 15234
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote pinguin Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 09 Jan 2011 at 22:32
Yes, we are getting into the topic now, which is good. With respect to authority, I preffer to see the evidence, rather than following the leader.

Let's see what we know about Teotihuacan and Mesoamerican architecture, from an analytical point of view. Let's start by the materials.

Materials


(1) Lime mortar

Palace of Quetzalpapalotl.



In Teotihuacan lime mortar was used intensively in the architecture.

Lime mortar is a type of mortar composed of lime, an aggregate such as sand, and water. It is one of the oldest known types of mortar, dating back to the 4th century BC and widely used in Ancient Rome and Greece, when it largely replaced the clay and gypsum mortars common to Ancient Egyptian construction.

In the New World, thought, lime mortar was only used in Mesoamerica, particularly in Teotihuacan.





Back to Top
drgonzaga View Drop Down
King
King
Avatar
Plus Ultra

Joined: 02 Oct 2005
Status: Offline
Points: 6261
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote drgonzaga Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 09 Jan 2011 at 23:25
That's an analytical p.o.v.? Pinguin you are incorrigible and as for "preferring to see the evidence", well kindly list the number of visits to Teotihuacan and your affiliation documents with INAH. After all even pictures lie and the above is a perfect example since the wood lintels across the columns are reconstructions premised solely upon the presence of charred wood fragments during excavation. Shall we now go into how this particular site is not one but two buildings , one earlier and built over, which as reconstructed imply two separate structures.
 
As for defining lime mortar and calling that relevant and requiring elucidation, please cease insulting the intelligence of others. You just wanted the veneer so as to rip-off another picture from the Internet. Hope that you are contributing toward the payment of bandwidth...
Honi soit qui mal y pense
Back to Top
pinguin View Drop Down
WorldHistoria Master
WorldHistoria Master
Avatar

Joined: 29 Sep 2006
Status: Offline
Points: 15234
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote pinguin Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 10 Jan 2011 at 09:04
(2) It is clearly evident that ancient Mesoamericans knew the column





Edited by pinguin - 10 Jan 2011 at 09:07
Back to Top
drgonzaga View Drop Down
King
King
Avatar
Plus Ultra

Joined: 02 Oct 2005
Status: Offline
Points: 6261
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote drgonzaga Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 10 Jan 2011 at 09:36
Yawn...from Teotihuacan to Chichen Itza courtesy of Kodachrome! 
Honi soit qui mal y pense
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <1234>
  Share Topic   

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down

Forum Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 12.03
Copyright ©2001-2019 Web Wiz Ltd.

This page was generated in 0.141 seconds.