I want to understand John’s rejection. Up to that point it was a good discussion. But he had a reaction to the Olmec figures in yoga poses image I posted. His response …
I have difficulty supposing that you’re serious. Please affirm if so.
I recognize this reaction. This is that same ‘ridiculous’ reaction I had initially. This is where I lost him. He saw those Olmec figures in yoga poses and his BS detector went off. Never told me exactly what it is that makes him feel that way, but it rang BS and he was done with it.
As you can imagine, I’m suggesting there were hundreds of beings who lived immortal long lives for 2000 years in human history, so I see this a lot. I had the same reflexive/knee-jerk reaction in the beginning. That’s ridiculous.
The problem is nothing I can find, other than my gut, says it didn’t happen. If we didn’t have the fossil record and skeletal remains, if someone were to tell you that millions of years ago giant reptiles used to walk the Earth, any reasonable person would probably have that same gut response. That’s ridiculous. And it is. It’s also true.
I’m afraid this is von Daniken level scholarship at best. I don’t think we have anything to discuss.
Did you even look at his evidence for an Indian influence on the Olmecs? You must have some standards. Don’t you?
No explanation. If he’s like me he can’t explain it. That’s what I’ve been trying to do for a decade now. Justify my initial ‘that’s ridiculous’ response. I’ve come at it from every direction. I can’t find one single thing that says this didn’t happen. Everything keeps pointing the other direction.
It’s a handy device. You should get one. Those aren’t “yoga poses”; they’re positions that people (or occasionally just contortionists) get into all over the world. The so-called “lotus position” is just the way people sit on the floor. Your credulity is not serving you well.
Did you open the doc I got those from? I only posted a third of what they had. I can understand your reasoning to a degree, but when there’s a representation for 20 different poses within the same discipline it wears a little thin. Do you or anyone you know often get into these?
cave painting of a figure that shares more than a couple of characteristics with the very same Hindu god who’s specifically credited for these yoga poses (and being in a cave is specific to Shiva as well)
figure of an elephant when there were no elephants in the Americas that resembles the Hindu god Ganesha
This is 3 different things, all from the Olmec culture, all share commonality specifically with Hinduism, and you still dismiss this? That’s just the way people sit?
I think your device could use some calibration. Start by opening that document and going through all of it. There’s a lot there. Well beyond anything your “that’s just the way people sit” reasoning will contend with.
Is that because of the big ears? It doesn’t have tusks, and the snout isn’t really long enough. Nor are the legs.
Figurine feature : Opossum : Elephant
Big ears : yes, smaller : yes, larger
Rounded body : yes : yes
Long snout : yes, shorter : yes, much longer
Short legs : yes : no
Lacks tail : definitely not : no
Lacks tusks : yes : not usually
Posture : maybe, in trees : no
I don’t think this figurine is sufficently dissimilar from an opossum, especially Didelphis, to confirm that it is definitely not one. Given the options that (i) it is a model of a local animal with exaggerated features, or (ii) a model of a non-local animal with stunted features, why pick (ii)?
P.S. There are other didelphids with rounded ears rather than pointed ones.
I’m highlighting that someone familiar with Asian elephants is much more likely to know of elephants without tusks.
(highlighted text was that way when I copied it. Not my doing.)
Also, notice the image of the Hindu Elephant figure doesn’t have tusks.
This statement far exceeds the weight of evidence you have proffered, although further study might be warranted into possible migration or trade. Occasional similarities art and culture which are entirely coincidental and unconnected are to be expected. To be convincing, the onus is on you to demonstrate that such correspondences are more pervasive and systematic. It is not close minded to demand that an idea find more support to be taken seriously. Remember, scientists realize it is up to them to build a persuasive case, a defining characteristic of crackpots is that they consider their theories to be taken as correct until proven otherwise.
As far as the Olmec figurine is concerned, in all honesty the first thing that sprang to my mind was ant eater, although armadillo also fits the bill. I’m not kidding. It is like that “Stegosaurus” inlay at Angkor, artistic liberty can lead to some wonky interpretations.
I feel like just what I’ve offered thus far goes a long way towards that. These are not just “occasional similarities”. I’m focusing here specifically on things that go beyond coincidence and show numerous similarities to the same overall Hindu theme. Not just similarities between each piece and what they share, but the commonality of each piece in relation to each other. For instance, the yoga figures are specifically associated with the same Hindu figure in the cave art. And the elephant headed god is the son of that same deity. Not to mention the significance of an image of Shiva being in a cave is also specific to that Hindu deity.
There’s far more beyond what I’ve presented here, but I don’t feel this element is a big enough piece of the overall proposal to commit such a large piece of the discussion to this aspect of it. There’s far more in the doc I referenced that I haven’t posted here, and far more beyond that as well.
I’m claiming that the sculptor was familiar with a Hindu figure that comes from a place where it was far more common that elephants didn’t have tusks, so the figure not having tusks does not mean it’s not an elephant. In fact, the lack of tusks associates it more specifically with an Asian elephant.
The ears. Not just big, but round, not pointy. The trunk as well, rather than a snout, but that’s a bit too subjective to even attempt to argue.
The shape of the head
The shape at the end of the snout much more elephant like than the shout of a possum.
Ok, so the figure not having tusks doesn’t mean it’s not an elephant, since it could be a female Asian elephant. You’ll notice I never said that elephants always had tusks, only usually.
Meanwhile:
Since you have no reason why it couldn’t be a didelphid opossum, it isn’t definitely an elephant, the sculptor wouldn’t need to be familiar with Hindu figures from India (or elephants) since familiarity with local animals would suffice, and there is nothing that requires an explanation.
The shape and position (side of the head) of the ears. Also, from this profile angle the trunk is much more prominent. Not to mention while there is a Hindu tie to elephants that shares commonality with a number of other things associated with the Olmec culture, I can find nothing regarding possums or any other kind of similar creature.
So prominent that it’s obviously too short to be an elephant’s trunk, which may be why you haven’t produced any pictures of elephants for comparison. It also highlights the short legs too. So if it’s not an opossum because the ears and nose aren’t quite right, it’s definitely not an elephant. If it could be an elephant because of artistic license regarding the legs and trunk, it could be an opossum for the same reason.
You really can’t think of a connection between the Olmecs and opossums?
You’re clearly applying one set of standards to the answer you favour, and a completely different set of standards to alternatives you disfavour. Such special pleading is unconvincing.
While I appreciate what you’re pointing out, this one figure is such a minor part of the overall case I’m making, and being able to determine whether or not the original intention of the sculptor was to make an elephant/possum/mouse/whatever is impossible. We only have our subjective opinions on the matter. It’s not really worth the effort to attempt to argue the case any further.
But if that’s a possum I’ll eat my hat.
I feel like you’re referring to something in particular and you’ve got my interest.
And there you have it. Of course, this is still subjective in that it’s based on keywords and tags attached to images by people describing an image as they interpret it, but this search result would seem to suggest you are in the minority in thinking this figure is an opossum and not an elephant.
