Major Find in Peru

[Minimalist]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20071111/sc_ ... aeology_dc

LIMA (Reuters) - A 4,000-year-old temple filled with murals has been unearthed on the northern coast of Peru, making it one of the oldest finds in the Americas, a leading archaeologist said on Saturday.

No word on if the murals have representations of boats!

[kbs2244]

Hmmm.
2000 BC
I think we have agreed on a big diaspora of some kind around then, haven’t we?
Yes, it will be interesting to see if there are any boats in the murals.

[Minimalist]

National Geographic weighs in.

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news ... emple.html

[Digit]

Even if there isn't KB I wouldn't put too much emphasis on their absence.
Few murals of that age show the mundane.

[Ishtar]

This guy, Peter Panther, makes an interesting case for them being Polynesians.

http://www.users.on.net/~mkfenn/page4.htm

"Despite what mainstream isolationists will try and tell you, the Polynesians entered the Pacific islands through two gateways; from Peru to the Marquesas/Rapa nui and from Canada to Hawaii."

[Beagle]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21740087

Another article - with pic of mural.

This find could be very noteworthy. Worth watching.

[kbs2244]

They also mention fire worship.
Isn’t that a new one for the area?
And way too early for a Zoroastrian presence?

And, of course, you are right Digit.
“Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.”

[Minimalist]

Actually, kb, there are serious problems with that mantra. As this writer notes, it should be that an absence of evidence is not proof of absence. but it surely is evidence.

Kenneth Kitchen is often heard to utter the tautological
dictum `absence of evidence is not evidence of absence'
in response to some of the archaeological anomalies
raised by New Chronologists. It has become a holy writ
- his catch-all get-out clause to avoid confronting an-g
which does not agree with his own chronological model.
So let us analyse what this sacred mantra actually means.
According to Kitchen, just because there is no ar-
chaeological evidence of something it should not be
assumed that that something did not happen. Let me
give you an example. Just because there is not a shred of
evidence that Martians built the Great Pyramid does not
mean that Martians were not responsible for building
the earth's most famous monument. By Kitchen's phil-
osophy, enshrined in his oft chanted mantra, he would
have to defend the Martian hypothesis and, in doing so,
stand shoulder to shoulder with Eric von Daniken!
The phrase `absence of evidence is not evidence of
absence' is just another way of saying `anything goes' in
our interpretation of the available archaeological evi-
dence. This is plainly an untenable position for an aca-
demic of Kitchen's standing to take and he needs to
seriously reconsider his position.
Indeed, any thinking scholar would readily admit that
an absence of evidence is evidence of absence. It is not
proof of absence - but it certainly amounts to evidence.
Moreover, what is an historian to do if he is not per-
mitted to construct histories or chronologies based on
the available evidence? Is it not perfectly reasonable to
develop an historical model based on what we currently
know about the past? Should we forever hold out on
publishing our theories because some new fact might
just turn up tomorrow, in a hundred years time or at
some infinite date in the future? This is the logical con-
sequence of Kitchen's ill considered mantra.

Archaeologists must understand that each time a shovel goes into the ground it risks turning up an artifact which will turn the whole field on its head. Some, like The Club, fear that eventuality. Others keep digging in the fervent hope of finding just such evidence.[/b]

[kbs2244]

You know, I wasn't aware of the source of that quote.
It was just one of those things that makes the complex simple.
The opposite could, for sure, be true.
But then, so could it.
More than one piece of evidence has been rejected as not applying to the case.
Can anyone say “Out of place artifact?”
How about “Six of and half a dozen of the other” instead?

But, the fire worship thing intrigues me.
How did they come to that conclusion?
Is it unique to that area?
How does it relate, if it does, to fire worship elsewhere?

[Minimalist]

It was just one of those things that makes the complex simple.

Sometimes, too simple.

[Ishtar]

They also mention fire worship.
Isn’t that a new one for the area?
And way too early for a Zoroastrian presence?

The Hawaiians worshipped the fire goddess, Pele.

This is from Wikipedia on Fire Worship:

Although the term "fire-worshippers" is primarily associated with Zoroastrians, the idea that Zoroastrians worship fire is originally from anti-Zoroastrian polemic. Instead, fire — even in a Fire temple (the Zoroastrian terms are more prosaic and simple mean "house of fire") — is considered to be an agent of purity and as a symbol of righteousness and truth. In the present-day this is explained to be because fire burns ever-upwards and can't itself be polluted. Nonetheless, Sadeh and Chaharshanbe Suri are both fire-related festivals celebrated throughout Greater Iran and date back to when Zoroastrianism was still the predominant religion of the region.

In Vedic religion, fire is a central element in the Yajna ceremony, with Agni "fire" playing the role as mediator between the worshipper and the other gods. Related concepts are the Agnihotra ritual, the invocation of the healing properties of fire; the Agnicayana ritual, which is the building of a fire altar to Agni; and Agnistoma, which is one of the seven Somayajnas. In Hinduism which is really Sanatana Dharma, Agni or Fire is cosidered to be the tongue of the Supreme Lord Narayana, hence all the sacrfices done even to any demigod ultimately is a sacrifice to the Supreme Lord Narayana.

Archaeologically, the earliest evidence for Indo-Iranian fire worship is found at the transition from the Sintashta-Petrovka to the Fedorovo culture around 1500 BC, together with first evidence of cremation. While cremation became ubiquitous in Hinduism, it came to be disavowed in Zoroastrianism.

Fire is also an element of theophany in the Hebrew Bible (Burning bush, Pillar of Fire). Additionally, the Biblical Hebrew language is sometimes referred to as "the flame alphabet" because many devout Jews believe that the Torah is the literal word of God written in fire (for example Aish HaTorah). The Holy Spirit in Christianity is described as "tongues of flame."

[Minimalist]

Ole Yahweh may have gotten his start as a lowly volcano god, too.

Yah (Ex. 15:2) or Yahweh was originally a volcano god, a god of thunder, lightning, and earthquakes who often manifested himself in fire (viz. the burning bush). He is generally thought to have been an amalgam of a number of Mediterranean gods and goddesses, beginning with the original Yahuwah (a mountain goddess) and including El, Yayash, Yaë, Shaddai, Enlil, Seth, Anu, Marduk, Yahu, Ea, and even En-ki. His consort — worshipped in the Fertile Crescent for centuries before Yah/Yahweh came along — was Asherah.

http://www.extremelysmart.com/insight/G ... Gender.php

[kbs2244]

OK,
So if this is a fire worship site, it pre-dates both the Polynesian and Zoroastrian ?
(And depending on whose version of history you go by, maybe even Yahweh?)
Does this make it the earliest fire worshiping site found in a “complex” society?

[Ishtar]

OK,
So if this is a fire worship site, it pre-dates both the Polynesian and Zoroastrian ?
(And depending on whose version of history you go by, maybe even Yahweh?)
Does this make it the earliest fire worshiping site found in a “complex” society?

The Harrapan (Indus valley) civilisation has fire pits, dated around 3,000 BC. The Rig-veda imho is also dated around that time, although Victorian Christians dated them later (due to their own prejudices) and that date has never been officially corrected, despite much evidence.

So anyway, the Rig-veda is made up of hymns dedicated to various deities, and the fire deity is Agni. (This became Igni in Greek and is where words like ignition come from).

Not all the Vedics were fire worshippers, and the Purus (who are the original composers of the Vedic hymns weren't). But an influx of the Anu tribe (see how I'm carefully not saying Anus here!) from Kashmir brought the fire worship into the Vedas. The fire priests of the Anus (damn!) were called Bhrigus. Interestingly (well, interestingly to people like me) is that fact that the Odinic Scandinavian fire priests were called Bhrisingrs.

The Anus/Bhrigus were eventually pushed out of the Indian subcontinent by the Purus and some went west to present day Iran/Iraq. One Bhrigu family was called Spinoza, which eventually spawned a descendant called one Zoroaster. Zoroaster rebelled against, and eventually reformed, his forefathers' Vedic religion and instead of worshipping the fire god, the fire was transformed into a symbol of purity.

PS There is some evidence of Vedic worship in South America. Hanumans (elephant gods) and others gods have been found in Mayan art, even though there never have been any elephants in South America. There is also a illustration from the Mayan Codex which shows a story from the Vedas - the one about the devas and demons stirring the ocean of milk. There's other stuff too...

[kbs2244]

So the Harrapan were apx. 1000 years earlier than this and had a fire god?
Were there any special symbols or such that would help tie the two together?
We have talked before about an India to/from SA possibility.
(Your elephant god in SA and maize in Hindu temples.)
Were the Harrapan pyramid builders?
And were there other fire worship sites in SA?