And now for something completely different ..

[James Coplin]

Actually we do have linguistic heritage of the Mayan language and lots of
other indigenous South American languages.  There are currently 6 million
speakers of Mayan languages living in Central America.  There is no
connection to Balinese.    Within these 6 million people we also have a
cultural heritage that shows no connection to Balinese culture. These
"connection" arguments based solely on architecture are what is forced and
specious - especially that we are talking about two groups that are not
even connected chronologically.

James R. Coplin

> -----Original Message-----
> From: music-bar-bounces at lists.music-bar.org [mailto:music-bar-
> bounces at lists.music-bar.org] On Behalf Of Jay Vaughan
> Sent: Friday, August 03, 2012 2:40 AM
> To: Music-bar
> Subject: Re: And now for something completely different ..
>
> >> As an academic I can weigh in on this a little.  To me, these
> >> "coincidences" are really forced.  I could go to Mall of America and
> >> take pictures of some of these same kinds of things but that wouldn't
> >> show a connection between the Mayans and late 20th century American
> retail.
>
> A specious argument.  Mall of America's artists most definitely would
have
> had some influence from the art-schools interest in Mayan/Ancient
cultures,
> so its not a big surprise you could find this similarity.
>
> >> The
> >> main way to attempt to connect disparate groups together is via
> >> linguistic and cultural similarity.
>
> Are the languages of the Mayans and Balinese, of the time period of the
> carvings/temples being discussed, fully accessible to us?
>
> No.  We only have the physical artworks these peoples left behind.
>
> >>  On these two grounds, the Mayan / Balinese connection falls
> >> completely flat on its face.
>
>
> Not really, but it was a fair attempt.
>
> >> The author's claims that
> >> scholars of the past had it right and has been suppressed is wide of
the
> >> mark.
>
> Perhaps the idea is just too abhorrent to the Christian cultures whose
> academies and institutions have formed our contemporary view of the
> subject..
>
>
> >> Past scholars made such claims because they did not do the
> >> extensive cultural and linguistic research and thus made connections
> based
> >> on the slimmest of evidence.
>
> Its based on actual comparisons with real evidence you can see and touch
for
> yourself - not some treatise on what 'languages of the period' may have
> sounded like.
>
> Besides which, there is actually a study on the subject of common
languages
> of the ancients, and .. yeah .. Protong.
>
> >> His claim that there is a current political agenda
> >> suppressing this is hysterical to me as  the colonizer's model and
view of
> >> the world in the past was a far more powerful political force that
> >> precisely shaped the past scholars to make these facile claims in the
> >> first place!
> >
> > Thank you, James, for getting some sense back into this discussion. :)
>
> I'm thinking you're seeing rationalization that wasn't, factually,
presented,
> Peter.
>
> Look outside the box.  There may be more to learn.
>
> ;
> --
> Jay Vaughan
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> music-bar mailing list
> music-bar at lists.music-bar.org
> http://lists.music-bar.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/music-bar