Once again, while I was searching for something else, an Anthropological site had posted this painting from a Mayan tomb and illustrating the social order of the Mayans. I immediately realised it was the same as the basic four-caste system of India, including the king (Rajah) on top but not illustrating the Untouchable caste on the bottom (there certainly were Mayans at the bottom of the scale, the tomb-builders saw fit not to illustrate them) Below the king and by level are the Noble caste of the Priesthood, the Military caste, the caste of Tradesmen, Merchants and Craftsmen, and at the bottom the Peasants or Commoners. This type of social organization is expanded from the original Indo-European organization by being more "Civilised" into recognising Upper, Middle and Lower classes.
I have every reason the social structure was imported into Mesoamerica from India probably along with the Tlatico pottery people, their pigs, chickens and bananas, their games, philosophy, exercises, religion and outlook, and with the Indus script: and that it is a relic of the older Indus or Harappan civilisation carried over. At the time the Tlatilco people came over, sacred earthen mounds (stupas) were being built in both places, and the better ones faced with stone, but probably the idea of Pyramids as such was out of a different cultural exchange at a different time.
Best Wishes, Dale D.
I had mentioned a number of features wherein the Mississippian Temple Mound Builders were similar to (Specifically) the Mayans, but one fact I did not make a big deal about is that the Natchez (Late-surviving Mississippian Mound Builders) ALSO have the same Caste system that the Mayas had earlier.
ReplyDeleteBest Wishes, Dale D.
R1a1 Haplogroup was found among the Guarani people, this could be Indian in origin.
ReplyDeleteThis is certainly interesting news. The Mayans were known to have cultural contacts with other peoples of the West Indies and around the Caribbean, so it is possible there is a direct connection and the same genetic type will be discovered in the Maya lands themselves. I have already heard opinions expressing that idea, but as yet these opinions are not backed up by testing.
ReplyDeleteBest Wishes, Dale D.
Just to be clear:
ReplyDeleteCaste, or class, systems were common (and still are) throughout the world. This Mayan system does not seem so close to the Indian system. The Indian Caste system does not have the ruler, or King, on top. The king inhabits the second caste along with his warriors.
The Cast system of India is roughly as follows
Priest caste: Priests and scholars
Ruling Caste: Rulers, high officials and warriors.
Trading Caste: Skilled Tradespeople, money lenders,minor officials
Working Caste: Laborers, unskilled workers, servants.
The OUTSIDE the caste system is
Untouchables: The "unclean": Pariahs, latrine and street cleaners, hijrahs (transvestite performers), non Hindus etc.
In most syystems around the world, the king is in a class by himself. I can easily see how that situation could DERIVE from the Indian system, which seems otherwise identical.
ReplyDelete