Archeologists Uncover Mayan Mural in Guatemala

OakDragon writes "Archeologists have found a 2,000 year old Mayan mural at a San Bartolo site in northern Guatemala. The mural itself is quite beautiful, and especially impressive as it predates what is considered to be the classical Mayan period by hundreds of years. Says William Saturno, "It was like discovering the Sistine Chapel if you didn't know there had been a Renaissance.""

Comments

Yikes!

[daeley]

"The story starts with this deity, who is patron of kings, standing in water. He's running a large spear through his own penis, letting blood. Blood is squirting all over the place," Saturno said.

Somehow I don't see the Catholics letting Michelangelo go down this particular path. ;D

Re:Yikes!

[linzeal]

Whatever did happen to good old fashioned human sacrifice?

Re:Yikes!

[Seumas]

It's all been moved to Guantanamo and Abu Ghraib.

Re:Yikes!

[uberdave]

With Christianity, we sacrifice Gods.

Re:Yikes!

[bill_mcgonigle]

That kind of stuff was saved for the 'back room'. Better marketing plan.

Not that suprising...

[Starker_Kull]

...condsidering that when the Western world discovered the "new" world, we pretty much trashed (not even intentionally - just being germ carriers) everything native we encountered for the next 200 years. The biggest gaps in our knowledge of Western history tend to be after a "barbarian" invasion, a plauge, flood, a library burning and sacking, etc. - so is it suprising that our knowledge of the history of the Americas is even more sparse?

On the bright side, there may still be other amazing discoveries lurking in the jungles, waiting for us to accidentaly stumble upon. I hope we have the patience and money to keep looking for them - Anthro departments are taking some major financial hits lately.

Re:Not that suprising...

[oakad]

I would rather said that germs were quite slow catching after Holy Inquisition or good old fellow Cortes (not counting innumerable other conquistadors in the broad sense, starting with Joshua Ben-Nun).

Re:Not that suprising...

[DangerSteel]

"Anthro departments are taking some major financial hits lately."

That's a shame, because if your Anthro department went 12-0 and went to a bowl game that would bring in a lot of needed funds... That's where the money is, Bowl games and poll results...

Re:Not that suprising...

[penguin-collective]

condsidering that when the Western world discovered the "new" world, we pretty much trashed (not even intentionally - just being germ carriers)

Europeans trashed the new world quite intentionally: the Catholic church in particular deliberately and methodically destroyed religious writings, murals, and other records.

Tumbleweeds...

[Evro]

I predict many tumbleweeds blowing through this story.

Vader says, "Most Impressive"

[mister_llah]

It is an interesting find, however, I must say that my interest would be greatly heightened if there was an actual picture of what they found.

Humbug!

Re:Vader says, "Most Impressive"

[Cheapy]

See that link that is titled "quite beautiful"?

Try clicking it :)

Let's face it, I'm a dolt.

[mister_llah]

That'll teach me to browse Slashdot in the wee hours of the morning.

Wait, it still is.

Drat.

Thanks for pointing that out, though :)

Re:Let's face it, I'm a dolt.

[bill_mcgonigle]

We'll let it slide this time since the article submitter felt the need to link an adjective phrase instead of the noun the article is about.

sad

[TheClam]

It really is quite beatiful. It's a shame that "nerds" don't think this "matters."

Certainty?

[QMO]

I am surprised at how certain they seem about the interpretations of the mural. I was imagining the painting as they described the interpretation and the painting that my imagination came up with had multiple intreptations.

Maybe they're right, but how do they get so sure?

Maybe they even have good reason to be sure, but it wasn't in the article. If anyone can tell me where to look to see if they really know, or if the intrepetation is just speculation, I'd appreciate it.

Re:Certainty?

[Descalzo]

It says that there are words there, some of which the scholars can read.

Re:Certainty?

[QMO]

I understand that, but I read both the Chicago Tribune and the National Geographic article, and I didn't get the impression from either one that they were really reading a narrative, but mostly intrepeting the pictures.
I just re-read the NG article, and got the same impression, but can't read the Chicago article anymore.
I guess I still need to find another source that will tell me just how much of what they are reading into this is speculation.

Re:Certainty?

[Descalzo]

From the Chicago Tribune:

The mural proves that these stories of creation and kings--and the elaborate writing and art to tell them--were well-established more than 2,000 years ago, centuries earlier than previously believed.

That's the best I could come up with. It makes it sound like there's writing to back up the art. Still, as I reread your posts, it makes me wonder the same thing: How do they really know?

Especially when you consider that there is so much we don't know, how certain can they be?

P.S.: If you want the Chicago article, I still have page 1 open in my browser and can copy it to you, but I don't imagine either of us really cares enough to take the trouble.