Mayan stone-frieze proves that a temple sank off the Yucatan

Here is the reason why researchers are finding sunken ruins off Cuba's coast. Take note of the crumbling temple in the background on the left. That temple resembles the actual temple of Kukulcan at Chichen Itza in the Yucatan.
Notice the erupting volcano sinking in the ocean. The tremors caused by the volcano are producing major tidal waves as seen in the center of the picture.
There aren't enough boats for the inhabitants so many perish under the water. This proves that the sinking region was of conciderable size.
There is no question as to the nationality of the survivor. Native American/Mayan/Toltec/Aztec/Incan and all those associated with ancient Americans.

Where did you find this.... it almost looks real.

I've seen that somewhere before. Someone was trying to use it as proof of the flood in the bible. Where is that carving located?

The orginal photographer who took this snap shot was Mayan scholar Teobert Maler, who died in 1917. It is said that he took it at an unknown site in the Yucatan.

This event describes the reason why the Mayans left the mythical homeland of Tulan.

In my opinion this stone-frieze represents part of the Atlantis legend where the island or continent sank.
(The Global Deluge is another story of a even earlier event.)

I forget which tribe it is, but one tribe says that their island was located in a lake and it sank. I think the whole place is located on a volcano, is kind of late to look for the info.

Maybe someone else can expand on this.

This is the beginning of the record of the coming of the Mexicans from the place called Aztlan. It is by means of the water that they came this way, being four tribes, and in coming they rowed in boats. They built their huts on piles at the place called the grotto of Quineveyan. It is there from which the eight tribes issued. It is there where they founded in Colhuacan (the Crooked mountain). They were the colonists of it since they landed there, coming from Aztlan.

-Spence, Myths of Mexico and Peru

In drawings, Aztlan is shown as an island surrounded by water, in which one person is shown rowing a canoe toward the shore. Located on the island is one stepped pyramid with six smaller temples around the pyramid.

[Edited on 5-4-2004 by lostinspace]

This is from an Aztec codex in the Boturini collection.

titan.glo.be...

Muaddib, I know exactly what you're talking about, I can't quite get my finger on it, but I believe it was an Aztec or Olmex city that was built on a lake, they used the water somewhat similar to a moat. I'm not really sure if it sank, but it became desolate, after the spanish came.

This photograph was claimed by one source to be from Tikal (forgot the link I found regarding that claim. I add it later). The one problem with this is that the images of the Lords of Tikal are dressed much different than this character. The one thing that brings out some sort of similarity is the large looped earings bearing a partial resemblence to Tlaloc the rain god. The turban is also out of place for the head gear worn at Tikal. Stela 16 raised by Hasaw Chan K'awil shows a rather strange looking headdress. Altar 5 also shows another strange form of headdress worn by Hasaw and someone from Calakmul. Would the stone-frieze be pre or post Maya ruins of Tikal? Could the surviving individual be the great grand father of the Maya? Its interesting to note that Stela 16 of Hasaw Chan K'awil shows him carrying an incense bag with a Tlaloc motif. Tlaloc, the rain god, was common to the Aztecs and the Maya.

lostinspace says:

"This photograph was claimed by one source to be from Tikal (forgot the link I found regarding that claim. I add it later). The one problem with this is that the images of the Lords of Tikal are dressed much different than this character."

I agree. I spent a lot of time during my last two vacations at Tikal, Calakmul (which is only now really being investigated), Altun Ha, Cahal Pech, and other Belizean sites. That drawing doesn't "look" Mayan at all.

Iknownothing says:

"Muaddib, I know exactly what you're talking about, I can't quite get my finger on it, but I believe it was an Aztec or Olmex city that was built on a lake, they used the water somewhat similar to a moat. I'm not really sure if it sank, but it became desolate, after the spanish came."

You may be talking about Tenochtitlan, the largest city of the time, which was built on a lake. However, Tenochtitlan did not sink or disappear; it still exists, with a population of bout 19 million, making it the second largest city in the world. It is no longer called Tenochtitlan, but Mexico City, and you can still go for boat rides on the moats at Xochimilco.

There was an Olmec city about thirty or so miles northeast of Mexico City. However, there was no lake or moat there, and it was already deserted when the conquistadores arrived. the Aztecs referred to it as Teotihuacan, "The Place where Men became Gods".

This pictures is also on another topic on ATS which brings the possibility that this stone carving is a depiction of the sinking of atlantis. If I can remember right, I believe it was talking about the descendants of atlantis escaping and finding refuge in south america (and other parts of the world?). I believe they were talking about the similar features of a pyramid in different parts of the world.

This is the best match I could find. Tula's Atlantes warriors fit the best for the stone-frieze in question.




www.geocities.com...


Compare the images:

It's a bit hasty to leap at the carvings being anything when what is missing is the writing around them. Perhaps someone can locate a book that shows the REST of the panel?

Then we would know exactly what it was about. We can certainly find resources for translation. But showing an image without its proper context and then guessing about it... that can give you meanings that are way wrong.

Originally posted by lostinspace
are producing major tidal waves as seen in the center of the picture.

THere is no representation of a tidal wave in the sculpture.

This proves that the sinking region was of conciderable size.
There is no question as to the nationality of the survivor.

This proces absolutely nothing, other than that the makers of the sculpture had a myth about a sinking city or somesuch. We already knew that.

It is said that he took it at an unknown site in the Yucatan.

So its completely unverified too? Making it not only redundant and useless, but possibly not even real?

The picture is certainly interesting, but I don't see how its helpful. These cutlures already have a story of flood/sinking island/etc, so how does this add anything to it?

Tho I would say that its possible that the erupting volcano adds a new element, as I am not entirely familiar with the details of the 'aztlan' aztec myth and associated myths. This would be a more specific correlation with plato's atlantis story.

I can see how a 'flood' could be a story that pops up in different places, since floods happen everywhere. But volcanos that destroy an island that sinks into the sea is somewhat more specific.

I'd also like to know WHEN it was carved. It's perfectly possible that he was taking a picture of something fairly modern. That would explain the anomalies in the picture.