Candi Sukuh - Java, Indonesia the Aztec Pyramid in Asia

Not a lot is known about this site, except that it has the only pyramidal temple in Southeast Asia. It bears an uncanny resemblance to Central American pyramids, there is also a twin-headed serpent carving.

If I wouldnt have read the letters in your post Id be assuming this is South-American.

This is another blow against the "there was no ancient transatlantic contact" crowd.

S+F from SF.

VERY nice find! You know alot of ancient cultures used the snakes as a symbol of medicine as we do today. Alot of people think this is where we got it. But like the other poster said I would have thought I was looking at an aztec temple etc. in South America! Just goes to show that no matter how much they try and hide it we have been moving all over the earth alot more than they would like us to believe.

Originally posted by warrenb
Not a lot is known about this site, except that it has the only pyramidal temple in Southeast Asia. It bears an uncanny resemblance to Central American pyramids, there is also a twin-headed serpent carving.

Yet it got its own Wiki page:

en.wikipedia.org...

Where there is information about for example the date of construction during the Majapahit kingdom in the 15th century.

[edit on 6-12-2008 by merka]

reply to post by merka


yes, but the dating is truly unknown.
it is the same as for the pyramids in Egypt and South America.
The so called MSM experts can only guess at the age of these ruins.

just because some so called expert says it was built in X date does not mean that the case is closed.

reply to post by warrenb


Not really, the dating are well known, in the case above the pyramid is dated to 1437. So what other artificats do you have linking them to the 'Aztecs'?

What is your alternative dating based on?

The problem with thinking that the Aztecs would have travelled that far is multiple.

1. The rather late development of the Mexica (what you call the 'Aztecs' )from the seven Nahua tribes from a homeland to the north of what would later become their capital in Mexico. They had no particular ability in naval terms.

2. Could earlier Mesoamerica civilization sailed the thousands of miles to Indonesia? Possible, but highly improbable. For one thing they would have had to have gone thru the Polynesians who were expanding in the opposite direction. The Polynesians make no mention of them. The Polynesians developed effective long range sea going technology over centuries of efforts. No one in Mesoamerica had their development period-or motivation. There was contact with other peoples in the carribean and along the west coast of the Americas, along the coast using rafts but this appears to have been a coastal trade only. Although Heyerdahl proved that a raft might make it to Polynesia, there is no proof that they did.

3. Lack of any evidence of Indonesia cultural artifacts in Mesoamerica and vice versa.

4. The "it looks like" evidence is very weak, if you are going to build a raised platform you have two choices, a raised mound or a pyramid. A common solution to the same problem doesn't mean a connection.

5. The Indonesians, Chinese and Muslim traders of the day don't seem to have been aware of the Aztecs either.

6. Also the pyramids looks more Mayan than Aztec, but then again see item 4. LOL

7. Those interested in this structure might wish to read:

Sbeghen, J. M. (2004). An analysis of the sculpture of Candi Sukuh in central Java: Its meanings and religious functions 1437-1443 C.E. PhD Thesis, School of Languages and Comparative Cultural Studies, The University of Queensland.

Study of Candi Sukuh

8. A study of a specific art piece at the structure, in this case of the 'smithy'

The smithy

This piece of art shows a smith forging a blade

The smithy

We are of course well aware of the 'Aztec' ability to forge metal weapons........lol

Some more images of Candi











[edit on 6/12/08 by Hanslune]

The similarity of style indicates a common source of inspiration or a common source of knowledge, even if there was no contact between the aztects and indonesia.

reply to post by Skyfloating


The knowledge that a pile of stones which is wider on the bottom than at the top is more stable than any other? That sound more like trial and error than a common source.

Then again, the easiest way to make a tall sturdy building of individual blocks is to make a pyramid. that is the way to get the most elevation and the higher you go the less material it takes. The pyramid in question does bear a remarkable resemblance to the Mayan pyramids but how many different variations of a square based pyramid do you suppose there are. Then again, stories like this and the Olmec heads of Central America to make me wonder. We have an undocumented past, so far.

reply to post by stikkinikki


It seems to be a very superficial resemblance to these untrained eyes. Mayan pyramids tend to be "stepped" while this one is not. If you're looking at the staircase, again it's a matter of form following function. How else do you build stairs into a pyramid?

reply to post by Phage


Um she's talking about the style of the pyramids

Yeah, he's talking about the style. There are many different kinds.

reply to post by Skyfloating


Oh, Ok. Sorry.

But still, as I said, the stylistic resemblance is superficial and can be attributed to engineering requirements.

There are pronounced differences. Stepped vs not (though this could be because of the much smaller size of the Indonesian pyramid, it's tiny in comparison). One staircase vs more than one. Access to the enclosure at the top of the Indonesian pyramid is through the interior of the pyramid rather than outside of the structure as it is in the Mayan pyramids (the Mayan staircase rises to the topmost step).

The enclosed area at the top makes the two look similar but if you want to build a "room" at the top of a pyramid this is the way it would have to be done.

This picture shows a lot of what I'm referring to:



[edit on 12/6/2008 by Phage]

OK, I see the difference.

One always has to be leery of the concept of," it look likes therefore its the same", or "same equals a common basis".

Based on this idea one could make the argument that the spear was invented only once and spread around the world by hyperdiffusion.

One could use the Mimizuka mound near Kyoto as 'proof' that the Celts came to Japan and built it as it resembles mounds found in Ireland and elsewhere or you could equally say, the proto-Japanese went to Ireland.

Neither idea has any validity as we have other evidence that clearly places the Mimizuka in the historic area.

Oh, by the way the Mimizuka mound is little known to westerner's, it was built during Japan's invasion of Korea and contains thirty thousand+ Korean noses and ears. Noses and ears being easier to transport than heads.

This is another blow against the "there was no ancient transatlantic contact" crowd.

I meant to comment earlier Sky that I believe you meant "ancient transpacific" crowd and not Atlantic!

Actually transportation in the Northern Pacific is easier than in the Atlantic, the currents that sweep past Japan will take a boat to the Pacific northwest while in the Atlantic the currents will take you from North America to Europe. However the fringe eurocentric and somewhat racist theories never have the native americans coming to Europe. Well the sane ones that is.

A number of Japanese/asian boats have made the trip to the Pacific northwest in historic times and may have done so in the pre-historic period also.




[edit on 7/12/08 by Hanslune]

yes, trans-pacific, of course.

Despite your answers provided, this object also raises two questions:

1. Why no other similar found in Asia?
2. What was the inspiration for it?

Originally posted by Skyfloating
yes, trans-pacific, of course.

Despite your answers provided, this object also raises two questions:

1. Why no other similar found in Asia?
2. What was the inspiration for it?

I'm working on a new thread on that I hope I'm not stepping on the toes of the poster I may need to ask a few question before I post it though.

Originally posted by Skyfloating
yes, trans-pacific, of course.

Despite your answers provided, this object also raises two questions:

1. Why no other similar found in Asia?
2. What was the inspiration for it?

Exactly, it seems extremely out of place and rather unique for the area. If you gave an engineering project with similar parameters to an easterner and a westerner because of culture and numerous other influences they would most likely produce similar but somewhat different projects. ie: egyptian pyramids and south american.

This one just seems too similar...

Originally posted by Skyfloating
yes, trans-pacific, of course.

Despite your answers provided, this object also raises two questions:

1. Why no other similar found in Asia?
2. What was the inspiration for it?

There may be more similar structures in Asia. I'm unaware of anyone who has done a systematic study based on that premise.

Inspiration? Human imagination, not everyone follows the cultural dictats of their environment. One experiment you might want to try. I've had students try this. Design a pyramid that DOESN'T look like any other cultures pyramids. Have fun.

reply to post by Uber Fr0g


But it's a elegant solution to an engineering problem. Take a look at Khymer and other South-east asian structures associated with Hindu and Buddhist themes, with some modification they have the same basic structure as the Mesoamerican pyramids

If one were to look at the pyramid in Rome-would one consider it built by the Egyptians? An isolated idea by an imaginative person or a Roman borrowing? In this case we know its the last. But if we didn't know that how would we account for it?

A Chinese/Malaysian/Indonesian trip to Mesoamerica would be a lot more believable than an Aztec one to Indonesia - based solely on the naval technology. However in this case the builder of temple was known.

They made it to Madagascar