Diffusionistic Fantasies IIc

Thor Heyerdahl, Part Three

Sacred Sun stone (Intihuatani)

Machu Picchu Peru

In two previous postings I went through Thor Heyerdahl’s listing of reasons to believe that there was significant cultural diffusion between the Old and New World before Columbus. Here I will go through the last 14 items in Thor Heyerdahl’s list and then wrap up with a few conclusions.

Diffusionistic Fantasies IIb
Thor Heyerdahl, Part Two

Stela from Chavin in Peru
In a previous post I went through the first twenty points giving reasons for thinking widespread significant diffusion happened between the Old and New Worlds. Here I the next twenty reasons given by Thor Heyerdahl along with comments on each point.

21. The building of adobe houses regulated into blocks that are separated by street and public squares and equipped by water and sewer systems.
22. Long-distance supply of water for irrigation and public consumption through channels and elevated aqueducts, and the manufacture of uniform sections of pottery piping widened at one end to receive and enclose the narrow end of the next and higher pipe to form a continuous conduit.
23. Large-scale terrace agriculture with the use of animal manure and artificial irrigation for the cultivation of food crops and cotton for clothing.1

I am speechless. Does Thor Heyerdahl seriously think that learning to use mud to build shelters requires diffusion? Or that mixing it with straw and other binding agents is impossible to learn independently. We have mud building from very early on in the New World there is no need to assume diffusion. Besides the dwelling show a process of development. No sudden eruption of such dwellings. As for streets, sewers and water dispersal systems. Well those are simply natural and fairly obvious solutions to the problem of a lot of humans living together. After all there should be paths to walk among the dwelling, some sort of disposal system for all the human waste etc., created and of course people will need water. This of course especially important for people living in dry areas.

As for long distance supply if you live in an area that is dry or where the sheer number of people make it difficult to use local supplies because of pollution by human waste etc, then of course you must get it from other areas and somehow bring it to where it is needed; an aqueduct or canal are fairly obvious solutions. Besides is Thor Heyerdahl seriously suggesting that it would occur to no one to dig a canal to get water from point a to point b? As for the pottery piping. It should be pointed out that pottery piping is a good solution to the problem of getting water from point a to b. It also reduces losses through evaporation and protects the water from theft and possible blockage. Further if your going to use pottery to conduct water from point a to b you have to construct the pipes that way and seal them, otherwise water will leak out at the joints between sections. As per usual the archaeological record shows development over time in the New World.

Let get this straight is Thor Heyerdahl seriously suggesting that it requires diffusion for people to realize that if you practice agriculture on hilly and mountainous terrain it is a good idea to build terraces?! This is absurd terraces are an obvious solution to the problem. As for animal manure and irrigation; the fertility enhancing properties of animal manure are obvious and so is using canals etc., to bring water where it is needed. No need to evoke diffusion.2

24. The harvesting of the lint obtainable not from wild cotton but only from the artificially hybridized cultivated cotton; the spinning of those short fibers into yarn by twisting a stick threaded onto a specially shaped ceramic spinning whorl of identical size and form in both areas; the dyeing of the yarn; and the manufacture of the same two types of looms used to weave the yarn into polychrome fabric.
25. The similarity of cotton garments as pointed out by isolationists and diffusionists alike: the loincloth and cloak for men, and the dress with girdle and shoulder pin for women.
26. Identical types of leather and rope sandals.
27. The extremely important feather crown worn by warriors and men of rank (Characteristic of Mexican and Peruvian nobles, feather crowns are assumed by many to be a strictly American custom; it is nevertheless a characteristic headwear of the ancient Middle East, as shown in reliefs of Hittite warriors, as well as Egyptian illustrations of their sea-roving enemies, the mysterious Mediterranean “Sea People”)3

Well first of all the cotton of the New World is not “artificially” hybridized. The so-called hybridized form has existed for millions of years. Thor Heyerdahl claims this in order to provide an argument for the human borne spread of cotton and cloth manufacture. Second of all the making of cloth from cotton goes back to before 2000 B.C.E., maybe even 4000 B.C.E., in Peru which precludes pretty well diffusion and especially any diffusion by people from the Atlas region of North Africa c. 1200 B.C.E., which is Thor Heyerdahl’s main claim in the book. Given the above the further claims of similarity of whorl is not very helpful especially since the whorls are different. The whorls seem to have been in use in the Americas from early on. Diffusion seems to be precluded. As for dyeing the yarn. Since when is diffusion need to explain why people dye their clothing? The same thing for multicoloured fabrics. Of course Thor Heyerdahl ignores the differences between Peruvian textiles, with their intricate weave patterns and many, many colours with old world textiles. The two types of loom, not mentioned by Thor Heyerdahl are the back loom and the independent loom. Those are general types not specific types. Thor Heyerdahl ignores differences in detail. Further he ignores the fact that looms seem to have been in use from at least 2000 B.C.E., and probably 3000 B.C.E. Which effectively precludes diffusion. As per usual Thor Heyerdahl ignores also the evidence of the slow development of technique.

The clothing similarities Thor list ignores that the human body is the same the world over so humans happening on the same clothing solutions is not a surprise at all. Further it is likely that the first Americans had similar clothes to Europeans when they arrived in the New World so that modifications of that dress would likely have similarities with the Old World. Thor Heyerdahl also picks the clothing that is similar to the Old World examples he compares them too ignoring clothes that are different. The same goes with sandals. Once again over time and place Americans had a great variety of clothing just why are those similar ones considered so important by Thor Heyerdahl? This is an example of a trivial similarity. Diffusion is simply not necessary.

Thor Heyerdahl then tries to claim that the feathered headdresses of the New World derive from the Old World. There are a number of problems with that; one of them is that it is very likely that the so called feathered headdresses of the Hittites and Sea Peoples are no such thing but hair cut short and then bundled up with string. The other thing is that the feathered headdresses of the Olmecs seem to be quite different from any of the so-called headdresses of the Sea Peoples and Hittites. Finally it appears that feathered headdresses predate the Hittites and Sea peoples in the Americas.4

28 The Complex organization and maintenance of standing armies, with the custom of giving the soldiers shields with painted symbols intended to identify their units, and the use of canvas tents in military camps.
29. The use of the sling as an important weapon, the corresponding types of both rope and band slings with the same kinds of cradle, slit, and finger hole.
30. Parallels and identities in tools and utensils, often pointed out in farming implements, and in carpenters’ and masons’ tools, in the instruments of artists, in the
hooks, nets, and weirs of the fisherman, in the merchants’ balances, and in the drums and wind instruments of musicians.
31. Long range expeditions in search of special molluscs, highly valued for their red shells or for the red dye extracted from the snail.
32. Identical stages in the evolution of metallurgy. The same metals were sought, yet iron was ignored by the pre-European cultures here compared. Gold and silver were highly treasured, the ore was melted, hammered and molded in the same kind of pottery matrix to form figurines and jewelry sometimes with striking similarities. For the hardening of copper into bronze difficult prospecting was carried out often in remote areas, in search of the tin to produce the alloy.5

Sometimes Heyerdahl seems to display the most amazing inability to see humans as intelligent. Does he seriously believe that the idea of having a standing army requires diffusion! It is rather an obvious solution to the problem of protecting the state. The stuff about painted shields etc., and the use of tents all seem, well obvious! Finally why is Thor Heyerdahl once again comparing things that existed in the New World c. 1500 C.E., with things that existed in the Old World c. 1200 B.C.E? Thor Heyerdahl does not provide the evidence that these things existed in the New World c. 1200 B.C.E.

The sling almost certainly predates man arriving in the New World. They probably brought it there with them. Given the nature of the sling they would look alike anyway even if they were independently invented. It is of interest that Thor Heyerdahl ignores the following. His Sea People like invaders of 1200 B.C.E., had the Bow and Arrow which they unaccountably left behind in Europe the Bow and Arrow does not show up in the Americas until c. 800-1000 C.E. That is really strange in they invaded c.1200 B.C.E.

As for the general similarity of tools. Given similar problems and the similar configuration of the human body it is not surprising that many tools will show a similarity. It is for example easy to establish that fishing equipment was fairly similar between the Old and New World in say c. 8000 B.C.E. Thor Heyerdahl assumes because they look sort of look alike they had a common origin. Further no Old World tools of these types have been found in the New World. Also New World tools show a pattern of development that seems to preclude diffusion. Also it is likely that some of the very basic prototypes of these tools were brought into the Americas by the first Americans. Many of these tools seem to long precede 1200 B.C.E., in the Americas.

Regarding the dye. Firstly the use of red dyes especially red ochre is common the world over. Probably because red ochre looks like blood. So Americans investing red with importance as a colour is not a surprise. If they valued red coloured dyes and minerals that produced that colour than long expeditions to get it are not surprising. Does Thor Heyerdahl honestly think that Americans have to be taught red was important?

The last section is purest deception by Thor Heyerdahl. At the time he was writing the book he would have known that metallurgy of any kind did not appear in Mesoamerica until after c. 700 C.E. This includes silver, gold and bronze. It is passing strange that his bronze welding Sea People warriors completely forgot metallurgy when they invaded Mesoamerica. So for c. 2000+ years after they supposedly invaded Mesoamerica metallurgy was completely forgotten. Since Thor Heyerdahl would know this with even a cursory look at the literature his suppressing of this is in fact deception on his part. Further the Olmecs apparently knew nothing about metallurgy and no evidence as been found to indicate metallurgy c. 1200 B.C.E. in Mesoamerica.

As for South America it appears that metallurgy involving silver and gold appears c. 800 B.C.E., and bronze making c. 400 B.C.E. Both well after Thor Heyerdahl’s Sea People invaders are supposed to have arrived. Further Thor Heyerdahl in another effort of deception ignores that the vast majority of bronze in the Andean region was copper with arsenic as the alloy not tin. Since this is well known Thor Heyerdahl’s suppression of this information is a form of deception. Also the evidence seems to be clear that the methods of working metals including casting methods were independently invented as indicated by the archaeological record which shows the development of technique.

Of course the implied notion that Americans had to be taught to value gold and silver and had to then learn fro someone else to go into difficult areas to find it is simply risible. As for ignoring iron. Well some American did use iron, however like the peoples of the Old World, until they learned how to work it, they generally ignored iron because they did not have the requisite techniques to work it.6

33. Short-handled bronze mirrors, pincers, and small ornamental bells as major products marking entry into the Bronze Age.
34. Gold filigree work of outstanding quality. The minutely detailed articles of adornment produced by the American high cultures equalled the masterpieces of the ancient Middle East and, like the best of the fine-meshed textiles, surpassed anything in contemporary Europe.
35. Extremely sophisticated ceramic art repeated in the same specialized forms as polychrome funeral ware. The conventional tripod vase, considered so characteristic of the Middle East that it is identified as Phoenician when encountered archaeologically on the Atlantic coast of Morocco or the Canary Islands, is equally symptomatic of the American high-culture area from Mexico to Peru. Characteristic of both areas are also the polychrome effigy vessels in the form of heads and objects of various kinds. Reappearing on both sides of the Atlantic, and well known in each area, is the ceramic vase in the form of a human foot truncated above the ankle and wearing a sandal; the constantly repeated jars in the form of fish, birds, and quadrupeds, with spout and loop handles on their backs; the ring-shaped vase in the form of a coiled-up snake carrying miniature jars on its back; and its composite clusters of fruits and globular jars joined by cross tubes into one common long-necked spout.
36. The great importance of an abnormally flat ceramic figurine representing a naked female goddess. Its universal characteristic is that the body and limbs were flat as a plate, whereas the head was represented in the round. From the Middle East the Phoenicians brought this figurine westward through the Mediterranean as a representation of their principal goddess, Tanit, the Earth Mother. With identical properties the same little female figurine is perhaps the most characteristic example of early ceramic art all the way from Mexico to Peru.7

Regarding no. 33. It should be repeated that these inventions are rather obvious and further they do not appear in the New World until after 600 B.C.E., and then only in South America. Also they do not appear at all in Mesoamerica until after 800 C.E. This is long after the supposed arrival of Bronze welding invaders c. 1200 B.C.E. Once again Thor Heyerdahl “forgets” that the appearance of these traits does not synchronize very well with the Old World. Thor Heyerdahl compares traits from before 1200 B.C.E. to traits in the New World that appeared in some cases well over 1000 years later. Of course Thor Heyerdahl once again ignores all the signs of gradual development over time of these cultural traits.

Regarding no. 34. Thor Heyerdahl once again ignores signs of the development of these cultural traits over time and of course the fact that metal work appears in the New World at least 400 years after the alleged arrival of his Sea People invaders. Of course he also ignores the clear signs in the archaeological record of the development of these cultural traits over time.

No. 35 is an example of trait mining. Once again Thor Heyerdahl ignores when the various traits appeared in the New World as against the Old World. Instead he searches in the vast cornucopia of New World pottery for objects that resemble objects found in the vast cornucopia of Old World pottery. Not surprisingly given the vast amount of objects to choose from he finds some that resemble each other. Of course Thor Heyerdahl ignores issues like whether or not the objects in question are in any way close in time. Instead he compares objects that may be from very different time periods. I further note that he does not give any specifics about the New World finds he is comparing to the Old World finds. The mention of the Phoenician tripod vase is fascinating I wonder why he doesn’t mention the same detail for their New World counterparts? Perhaps because they are too far apart in time? The rest of the traits lack specifics and are also fairly general and so not of much use.

36 is fascinating although he once again gives the alleged Old World source he does not give any specifics about the New World except very general claims that the trait is early and widespread. Well that could mean all sorts of things. Well it appears that this Earth mother figure did not appear among the Olmecs or among the cultures of Peru at this time. It appears that Thor Heyerdahl has in mind the culture of Teotihuacan and its Great Goddess. By failing to give specifics and making it difficult to check Thor Heyerdahl does not help himself. It also appears that this cultural trait is not widespread in the New World.8

37. Clay models of daily life. In both areas occur identical pottery figurines showing a kneeling woman grinding flour; a pregnant woman sitting in a straddling position with another holding her from behind and a third one in front receiving an emerging baby; and a ring of little figurines holding hands in a dance around a little central figure playing the flute.
38. Funeral ware in the shape of small animals rolling on wheels. Although it was widespread I the Middle East and brought westward by the Phoenicians at least as far as Ibiza, the American distribution seems to be restricted to the early Olmec horizon in Mexico.
39. Marked importance of short-handled stamp seals as well as cylindrical seals of terracotta, with surfaces incised with a variety of figurative or geometric motifs. Dipped in color the stamp seals used for printing symbols and designs and the cylinder seals for rolling them in continuous bands. The same special motif is sometimes repeated within both areas.
40. The custom of carving wooden figurines and sometimes also big stone statues with deep concavities in place of eyes, which were subsequently inlaid with sea shells surrounding a black obsidian pupil.9

No. 37 is rather funny aside from the usual problem of what time period he is comparing them to. Is Thor Heyerdahl seriously suggesting that representations of such common motifs world wide require diffusion!? I personally think that Thor Heyerdahl is referring to, in part, the abundant pottery remains depicting everyday life that has been found in western Mexico. Unfortunately for him it dates long after c. 1200 B.C.E. This point cannot be taken the slightest bit seriously.

38 is interesting in that it remains of wheeled toys have been found at the Olmec site of Tres Zapotes dating to about 800-600 B.C.E. A problem is that they don’t look much like Phoenician wheeled toys and of course this is long after the supposed invasion of 1200 B.C.E. Also it occurs among a whole list of artifacts that show little sign of Phoenician influence and of course no Phoenician artifacts have been found. Despite what Thor Heyerdahl says the wheeled toy was used by later cultures in the Mesoamerica, notably El Tajin and the Maya. The wheeled toy seems entirely absent in South America. Of course the invaders of 1200 B.C.E. came from cultures with the widespread use of wheels, from carts to toys just why would they suddenly restrict the use of wheels to toys in the New World is a bit of a mystery. They also did not bring over the pottery wheel. It appears that this use of the wheel was discovered independently in the New World. The reason for the failure to use it in other ways like transportation seems to be related to the lack of animals to pull. Still the use of he wheel does not require draft animals and supposedly these invaders came from societies that were familiar with all sorts of ways to use the wheel. So the failure to bring those other ways assuming they came at all at least indicates that contact was not intense.

39 is another example of Thor Heyerdahl’s inability to credit human inventiveness. The fact is seals exist the world over and seem to be a fairly common invention. Further the earliest seals in the Americas do not much resemble Old World seals in terms of motifs. Of course no Old World seals have ever been discovered in the Americas. Independent invention seems to be the obvious solution.

No. 40 can be dismissed out of hand in that Thor Heyerdahl is comparing a cultural trait that is fairly late in the New World at least in terms of evidence with a trait that existed early on in the Old World. Of course once again Thor Heyerdahl ignores the idea that replacing carved eyes with inlaid eyes for a more realistic effect is not a very difficult eye. Since human whites are white and pupils black replicating them with white shell and black obsidian seems rather obvious.10

Once again we have Thor Heyerdahl making vague comparisons, making much of the trivial among other gaffes. He also engages in outright distortion in some cases. Thor Heyerdahl further gives virtually no concrete examples of comparison and almost completely ignores problems with chronology, i.e., comparing items that are far apart in time. And as per usual assuming that humans are uncreative and un-inventive. Also Thor Heyerdahl engages in what can only be called deception in some of his points. In many cases the similarities given as evidence of diffusion are vague and not terribly convincing. The failure of Thor Heyerdahl to give many specific examples for the purpose of comparison also looks deceptive. Of course he also ignores again the issue of the lack of Old World artefacts in the New World specifically during the time he assumes that the invasion by Sea People occurred.11

That some of the similarities he touts as evidence of diffusion are mere trivial similarities that prove nothing, indicates that Thor Heyerdahl was padding his list. One again the examples are not terribly convincing and the mere piling up of dubious examples doesn’t prove anything.

In another posting I will complete my analysis of all of Thor Heyerdahl’s points.

Olmec Pendant

1. Heyerdahl, Thor, Early Man and the Ocean, Vintage Books, New York, 1978, pp. 87-88.

2. Aguilar-Moreno, Manuel, Handbook to Life in the Aztec World, Oxford University Press, Oxford, 2006, pp. 321-326, Coe, Michael D., The Maya, Seventh Edition, Thames and Hudson, London, 2005, pp. 204-206, Smith, Michael E., The Aztecs, Second Edition, Blackwell Pub., Oxford, 2003, pp. 665-72, McEwan, Gordon F., The Incas: New Perspectives, W.W. Norton and Company, New York, 2006, pp. 83-85, Janusk, John Wayne, Ancient Tiwanaku, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2008, pp. 182-193, D’Altroy, Terrence N., The Incas, Blackwell Pub., Oxford, 2003, pp. 24-25, 28, 32-33, 197-199.

3. Heyerdahl, p. 88.

4. Mason, J. Alden, The Ancient Civilizations of Peru, Revised Edition, Penguin Books, 1968, pp. 240-262, Moseley, Michael E., The Incas and Their Ancestors, Thames and Hudson, London, 1992, pp. 96-97, 101, 107-108, De Montellano, Bernard Ortiz, et al, Robbing Native American Cultures, in Current Anthropology, vol. 38, Issue 3, June 1997, pp. 419-441, at 437, Sandars, N. K., The Sea Peoples, Thames and Hudson, London, 1978, pp. 134-137. Dillehay, Tom D., et al, The first Settlers, in Andean Archaeology, Editor, Silverman, Helaine, Blackwell Pub., Oxford, 2004, pp. 16-34, at p. 25.

5. Heyerdahl, p. 88.

6. Driver, Harold E., Indians of North America, University of Chicago Press, Chicago, 1961, pp. 177-178, Mason, pp. 57-58, Davies, Nigel, The Ancient Kingdoms of Peru, Penguin Books, London, 1997, pp. 10, 14, 19, Sharer, Robert J., The Ancient Maya, Sixth Edition, Stanford University Press, Stanford CA, 2006, p. 576, Meltzer, David J., First Peoples in a New World, University of California Press, Berkeley, 2009, pp. 313-318, Leonard, Jonathan Norton, Ancient America, Time Incorporated, New York, 1967, pp. 122-123.

7. Heyerdahl p. 89.

8. Davies, Nigel, Voyageurs to the New World, William Morrow and Co. Inc., New York, 1979, pp. 141-165, Stiebing, William H., Ancient Astronauts Cosmic Collisions, Prometheus Books, Buffalo NY, 1984, pp. 131-165, Fritze, Ronald H., Invented Knowledge, Reaktion Books, London, 2009, pp. 62-96, Diehl, Richard A., The Olmecs, Thames and Hudson, London, 2004, pp. 97-105, Pool, Christopher A., Olmec Archaeology and Early Mesoamerica, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2007, p. 117.

9. Heyerdahl p. 89-90.

10. Davies, p. 109, Illustration between p. 178-179, Wauchope, Robert, Lost Tribes and Sunken Continents, University of Chicago Press, Chicago, 1962, pp. 74-77, 87, 91

11. For a fuller analysis of the logical flaws in Thor Heyerdahl’s arguments see Wauchope and Davies.

Pierre Cloutier

Diffusionistic Fantasies I

One of the most persistent mythological ideas concerning the development of civilization in the Americas is the notion that the pre-Columbian civilizations of Americas were the result of the diffusion of cultural traits from the Old World to the New World.

In other words that civilization in the New World was the result of the diffusion of cultural traits from the Old World to the New World.

Now this idea was fairly popular in the late Nineteenth and early twentieth centuries and has since declined considerably in popularity. However it still has many adherents the great majority of whom are not experts in the Civilizations in question or even terribly knowledgeable or experts who just like thumb their noses at the “orthodox establishment”.1

Now one of the most persistent characteristic’s of this type of thinking is a pervasive inability to believe that the Peoples of the New World could have developed civilization on their own.2 Thus the accomplishments of the peoples of the New World is nothing more than them borrowing from the peoples of the Old World.3 Part of this approach is the infamous “White God” mythos which is to put it politely a total crock.4

Now this attitude is worth exploring in greater detail elsewhere but her I will examine just one example of diffusionistic reasoning. The example of Pyramids. It is a common trope in Diffusion literature.

The idea is that the peoples of the Americas got the idea of pyramids from the Old World; most commonly they were alleged to be copying the pyramids of Egypt.5

Pyramids of Giza, Egypt

Here is where nomenclature helps confuse the issue. Simply calling two things by the same name does not prove that the two things are the same thing. For example we have wolves in the Old World & North America and on the island of Tasmania there used to exist, the now extinct, Tasmanian wolf. The fact is the Tasmanian wolf is not a wolf at all, but a marsupial and aside from being a mammal is not related to wolves at all, which are placental mammals.6 Thus calling something the same thing as something else does not prove that they are identical or that there is any sort of relationship between them. In the case of the Tasmanian wolf, they certainly look dog like, but are about as close to dogs as is the Spiny Anteater or Platypus.

Tasmanian Wolves
In the case of the Pyramids it is the same the fact that pyramids in Egypt and Mexico / Peru look alike does not prove that they are linked in any way. In order to link the two items one must do a comparison and this involves discussing that they were made of and how they were made.

Egyptian pyramids like the Great pyramid at Giza were largely built as tombs for the Pharaohs of Egypt. The era of the building of huge spectacular pyramids in Egypt lasted only a little less than a two centuries.7 This was the period of the 3rd and 4th dynasties.

It was during the reign of these Kings that Pyramid building reached its climax and then went into rapid decline. Ever since the unification of Egypt under the 1st dynasty Egyptians had been increasingly experimenting with stone work and with building stone monuments. By the beginning of the 3rd dynasty the Egyptians were fairly accomplished in this work.8

It was during the reign of Pharaoh Djoser of the 3rd dynasty that the first spectacular example of both pyramid construction and massive stone work was built. Djoser’s step pyramid and the mortuary complex around it are the first outstanding examples of truly massive stonework in human history. It is also a very well built series of constructions that are in quite good shape considering their age, (more 4500 years!).9

Step Pyramid of Djoser

In terms of construction the Step pyramid of Djoser was constructed of a series of stepped layers and the stone blocks constructing it were much smaller that the stone blocks later used.10 It was all part of the process by which the Egyptians were learning how to construct massive stone monuments. Later developments would add smooth sides to the pyramids and, enlarge the blocks of they were composed add granite covering stones and make them progressively larger.11

However towards the end of the 4th dynasty pyramids got drastically smaller. For example Menkaure’s pyramid is only about ¼ the size of the Great pyramid.12 Afterwards in the 5th and 6th dynasties pyramids were drastically smaller and far less finely constructed , being made largely of rubble and mud brick. It appears that Egyptians decided that the enormous cost of building such colossal and finely built edifices of stone was simply not worth it anymore.13

Now if the idea of Pyramids were brought to the Americas by people who were influenced by structures like the Great Pyramid one would expect pyramids in Mexico / Peru to resemble them. The problem is they do not.

Pyramid of the Sun, Teotihuacan

Because of the very extensive time period over which pyramids were built in the Americas and the very wide diversity of cultures and places that built them there was, not surprisingly a great diversity of methods by which pyramids were constructed in the New World.

Pyramid, Tikal, Guatemala

There are some commonalities; however, one is that the pyramid had an earth / mud brick / rubble interior and that it was almost always used as a platform for a temple where sacred services / rituals would be performed. Also not infrequently there would be burials in the pyramids, but there chief purpose seemed to almost always have been platforms for temples.14

Pyramid at Sipan, Peru

Now one of the problems for the idea that someone had to bring over the idea of building pyramids from the Old World is that it is hard believe that it would not have independently occurred to someone that piling up earth etc, was a way to build an impressive monument. The fact is that the pyramid shape has a great deal of stability and strength and anyone who engages in trying to build impressive mounds will find out that the four sided shape is remarkably stable. Once you start building such monuments you would naturally come to this conclusion.15

Aside from differences between the purpose and techniques of building pyramids between Egyptian and New World pyramids there is the rather difficult task of explaining why New World inhabitants would seek to copy pyramids built during the great age of Pyramid building. As I said above the great age of Pyramid building lasted less than 200 years and then pyramid building went into rapid decline. After all pyramids built did no start being built in Mesoamerica until c. 1500 B.C.E., and they could not by any stretch of the imagination be compared to stone built Egyptian pyramids. If there was diffusion one would expect copies of the rather roughly stone, adobe, rubble cores with stone facings of pyramids of the Middle Kingdom.16

Of course by 1500 B.C.E., the Middle Kingdom was over and the New Kingdom had began and Egyptian Pharaohs from were being buried in rock cut tombs not pyramids. So just why would Egyptian visitors teach Mesoamericans to build pyramids when they were not building them anymore? That along with different purposes, and techniques of construction, aside make it highly dubious one as anything to do with the other.

As for South America, the same strictures apply as above with one important exception. The first pyramids in South America date to c. 3500-3000 B.C.E., at Notre Chico in Peru!17 This needless to say throws a severe monkey wrench into the idea that the natives of the New World got the idea for building pyramids from elsewhere.

Pyramids at Caral Peru, Notre Chico Culture

In fact it appears vastly more likely that if there was diffusion of pyramid building it would have been from Peru into Mesoamerica rather than from the Old World to either Mesoamerica or South America.

Now a much better idea, if you’re going to postulate diffusion is from Mesopotamia to the Americas, at least in terms of time. Mesopotamia developed into a complex society between 4000-3000 B.C.E., and during the same time period started erecting platforms, made of baked mud brick and rubble, for temples.18 This is about the same time period for the development of the pyramid temples of the Notre Chico civilization so it does fit the time period. Further Mesopotamian Ziggurats did have temples on their tops. However it does run into a whole series of problems. The four most important being.

Ziggurat of Ur, Iraq

1. If there was contact one would expect some artifacts from Mesopotamia in Peru and some artifacts from Peru in Mesopotamia. What one finds is nothing.19

2. The techniques of building are very different. For example Mesopotamian Ziggurats were built of baked mud brick with rubble cores. The pyramids of Notre Chico were built of earth and some rubble put into place in reed baskets.20

3. Mesopotamian Ziggurats don’t look a lot like Peruvian or Mexican pyramids.

4. The Mesopotamian Ziggurats did not attain the form that looks like pyramids until after Egyptian pyramids, (c. 500 years later). Which of course precludes them being inspirational for Notre Chico civilization.21

Now it is of interest to report that although the Mesopotamian Ziggurats look at lot more like New World pyramids than Egyptian pyramids they were never used as burial places, meanwhile New World pyramids were often used as burial places. Egyptian pyramids were always used as burial places and never used as platforms for temples.22

The dual use of so many New World pyramids would seem to indicate that some sort of independent development was going on.

Also one would expect that if there was contact between the New World and the Old world that one would find Old World artifacts in the New World and New World artifacts in the Old World in the relevant archaeological strata. One does not. With the exception of a slew of truly dubious alleged finds which have no providence and just show up with no background the finding of pre-Columbian Old World artifacts in the New world has been to all apparently zip. The same is true for New World finds in the Old World.23

Certainly if Egyptians influenced the development of Mexican Pyramids or in fact brought the idea, one would expect to find some Egyptian artifacts in the New World during this time period. In fact one does not find such artifacts. The same is true for Mesopotamian artifacts. They are absent.24

As said above it is absolutely incredible that anyone would think that it requires someone to bring the idea of building large impressive mounds to the New World. That such an idea would never occur to anyone except one lone genius in all of human history, from whom everybody took the idea. One just has to look at children playing in a playground to realize that piling up earth and sand is a very common idea.

Further the techniques of building Old World as against New World pyramids are different. To quote:

But those early Meso-American pyramids were made of earth and rubble covered with clay or plaster. The impressive stone structures that tourists travel to Mexico City, Yucatan, and Guatemala to see belong to the Classic Period (c. 300-900) or later. Even these later monuments were built with a core of earth and rubble and only an outer coating of limestone blocks. This building technique is quite different from those used to erect pyramids in Egypt or ziggurats in Mesopotamia.25

Also as indicated above the time periods are all screwed up. What with the Mesoamericans taking up pyramids after the Egyptians had abandoned them. And most decisively that the earliest pyramids on Earth seem to be Peruvian. If anyone spread the idea it would be from Peru to the rest of the world. Yes before the Egyptian pyramids before Babylonian Ziggurats Peru structures superficially like them were being built in Peru; in the coastal desert valleys.26

Of course some authors make foolish use of the tomb of Pacal in the Temple of the Inscriptions, (c. 670-700 C.E.) and say that it is a copy of a Pharaoh’s pyramid tomb in Egypt complete with sarcophagus. Unfortunately aside from missing the fact that why would a Mayan King imitate a tomb built 3000+ years earlier, there is the fact that Pacal’s tomb including the sarcophagus are only superficially similar. Also Pacal’s tomb is in many ways, including its huge stone sarcophagus unique in Mesoamerica, (so far). I further note not a trace of Egyptian iconography or artistic influence can be found in the tomb. (Ditto for Mesopotamian)27

Tomb of Pacal in The Temple of the Inscriptions, Palenque, Mexico

In many respects the attitude that assumes that because something looks like something else they are linked assumes that:

A) Similarity proves contact / influence without regard to details.

B) Similarity cannot arise or is very unlikely to arise independently.

Both of those assumptions are dubious. Given that humans are biologically similar and have similar brains the idea that they just might come to similar solutions to similar problems should not be a surprise.

Why so many want to deny the possibility that the natives of the New World were largely responsible for the civilizations of the New World is in itself a very interesting question that says a great deal about those who propose it.

Akapana Pyramid, Tiwanku, Bolivia

1. See Williams, Stephen, Fantastic Archaeology, University of Pennsylvania Press, Philadelphia, 1991, Steibings, William H., Ancient Astronauts Cosmic Collisions and Other Popular Theories About Man’s Past, Prometheus Books, Buffalo NY, 1984, Fagan, Garrett, Review of Voyages of the Pyramid Builders, from In the Hall of Maat Here.

2. See for example Heyerdahl, Thor, Early Man and The Ocean, Vintage Books, New York, 1978.

3. An all too common attitude see for example IBID, and such books as Marx, Robert F., & Marx, Jennifer, In Quest of the Great White Gods, Crown Publishing Group, New York, 1992.

4. See Marx above & Heyerdahl pp. 93-126. For an effective demolition of this nonsense see Davies, Nigel, Voyagers to the New World, William Morrow and Co. Inc., New York, 1979, pp. 125-140, Reece, Katherine, The Spanish Imposition, from In the Hall of Maat, Here, Townsend, Camilla, Burying the White Gods, American Historical Review, vol. 108 No. 3, June 2003, also at In the Hall of Maat, Here.

5. Heyerdahl, pp. 85-86.

6. Thylacine, Wikipedia Here.

7. Edwards, I. E. S., The Pyramids of Egypt, Second Edition, Penguin Books, London, 1961, p. 297. (2700 – 2500 B.C.E.)

8. Rice, Michael, Egypt’s Making, Routledge, London, 1990, pp. 169-198.

9. IBID, Mendelssohn, Kurt, The Riddle of the Pyramids, Sphere Books Ltd., London, 1974, pp. 45-54, Edwards, pp. 53-80.

10. IBID, Edwards.

11. IBID. pp. 90-115.

12. Mendelssohn, p. 48.

13. IBID, 127-131, Edwards, pp. 170-210.

14. Stiebings, pp. 120-125.

15. For an amusing demonstration about the strength of pyramid structures see Thomson, Devon, Stressed Out Structures, at Here. It turned out that a pyramid could handle c. 9 times the weight that caused other structures tested to collapse. See also Fagan.

16. Edwards, pp. 211-253.

17. Notre Chico at Wikipedia Here. see also Moseley, Michael E., The Maritime Foundations of Andean Civilization: An Evolving Hypothesis, From In The Hall of Maat Here.


18. Bertman, Stephen, Handbook to Life in Ancient Mesopotamia, Oxford University Press, 2003, pp. 194-198.

19. Davies, pp. 9-10.

20. Bertman, pp. 194-198, Lost Pyramids of Caral at BBC Here

21. Stiebings, p. 121.

22. Stiebings, pp. 120-125, Feder, Kenneth L., Frauds, Myths and Mysteries, Mayfield Pub. Co., Mountain View CA., 1999, pp. 172-175.

23. See Note 19.

24. IBID.

25. Stiebing, p. 124.

26. Footnote 17.

27. Schele, Linda & Mathews, Peter, The Code of Kings, Simon & Schuster, New York, 1998, pp. 95-132.

Pierre Cloutier