Some Maya rulers may have taken generations to attract subjects
sciencenews.org
sciencenews.org
this is the big one; the reason shaman/priests were at the top of the hierarchy in all post-agrarian cultures is because knowing when to plant seeds was the most crucial societal role in changing from hunter-gatherer to domestic agricultural, fueling population density and allowing even more specialized roles.
Persian astologer-priests were literally the magi from which the word magic is derived, so yes.
True. [Well, they were actually Medes, Iranian astrologer-priests is more accurate.]
https://iranicaonline.org/articles/Magi
The Magi were one of the tribes of Medes and the designated priestly tribe (think Levi). And likely from exposure of Medes (possibly Kurds of today) to Mesopotamian cultural centers, specially Babylon, the Iranian tribes got into astrology and astronomy. The Iranians started out as nomadic herding tribes (Abel) before settling (Cain) and adopting urbanism in what is now called The Iranian Plateau.
So we Iranians (Medes or Persians) did not invent astrology - we almost certainly got that from Babylon and to this day our calendar is the Zodiac, of four season with 3 months each, commencing on Spring Equinox. For example Khordad (3rd month of spring) is Gemini.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zodiac
"Around the end of the 5th century BC, Babylonian astronomers divided the ecliptic into 12 equal "signs", by analogy to 12 schematic months of 30 days each."
This, imo, is where the 12 sons of Jacob (tribes of Israel) and the 12 Imams of Shia come from. All this numerology fascination is Babylonian in origin (though possibly they themselves got it from Egypt).
Same with the floats. How else would you carry statues around?
In general terms, if you look long enough into enough cultures, you start seeing patterns everywhere. But that doesn't necessarily mean that connections exist, or that they are more than superficial. Good example would be various pan-nationalist projects of the 20th century.
The sum of all judgement calls in this case is however tainted by vehement opposition to the notion from devout Catholics (or even culturally loyal Catholics), who naturally can not bear to think that the Virgin Mary is connected to heathen gods whatsoever. So there is that.
From my point of view it is only natural that iconography and traditions are transferred from one religion to another as the different geographic regions historically have moved from one religion to another. Many times such transferal has even been a conscious tactic as a way of increasing the acceptance for the new beliefs.
Many (most?) cultures that are not connected to the Mediterranean traditions don't carry statues of gods around at all.
So that covers two other major civilization centers on this planet. What does that leave us with? Maybe some cultures in sub-saharan africa? But there's definitely some connection there. So Americas?
TLDR: Opposite is true, carrying symbols of your religion, either by hand or in a vehicle, is extremely widespread.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Temple_car https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dragon_dance
But not where they end.
Using a Jungian (or gnostic/mystic) analytical framework, Isis and Mary represent the 'pure ground of emergence', and their son, 'the redeemer/the chosen'. This then is an inherent 'constellation' of human 'collective unconscious' that cyclically re-emerges as epochs change, taking on the garb reflecting the new cultural matrix.
The mystic/spiritual idea expressed is this: by purifying one's mind (Mary the chaste) there emerges a new center of conscious mind (the Son) who is 'guided and chosen' by God (i.e the Universal Mind). This 'son' is "persecuted" and "killed" but resurrects (Jesus and Osiris).
that's an interesting little phraseology/unsubstantiated theory of state, especially coming from a science publication. typically, you "subject" subjects, hence the word.
alternatively, if the redundancy bothers you, you can subject populaces instead.
"...aerial laser maps reported by Estrada-Belli and colleagues have revealed large, interconnected Maya cities now obscured by forests in other parts of northern Guatemala (SN: 9/27/18). The next step, Estrada-Belli says, is to assemble an aerial laser map of at least 100 square kilometers around Tamarindito to see if it was built in relative isolation."
if they don't even know whether it was built in isolation, how could they possibly be in a position to make these kind of conclusions about how it came about?
hence, "theory."
That seems like an appeal to linguistic authority.
I have a hard time imagining building a hierarchy without an attraction phase. There are many real world examples: Jim Jones, Uber, the French Revolution, etc.
He is Maya. They are Maya. Maya ruins. Maya clothing.
Mayan languages (30 odd ancient, plus one currently spoken in the Yucatan region).
Well, as you note, referring to the people of Spain in general as "the Spanish" is correct. This is an example of a fairly common construction in English: we equally refer to the French, the rich, the wealthy, the poor, the uneducated, the needy....
You appear to believe that referring to the people of Spain as "the Spaniards" would be even more correct, which suggests you're not a native speaker of English. That is not correct; if you say "the Spaniards", the only response you'll get will be "which Spaniards?", unless a particular set of Spaniards is suggested by context, in which case you'll be referring to them without including the rest of Spain.
But there is neither need to be presumptuous nor offensive, nor officious, in your attempts to grasp at my meaning.
Amusingly enough, in the process of trying to find an erroneous misuse of the terms, and striving in vain, I stumbled upon this article, which is about the complexity of "Spanish" as a transatlantic identity, when it conflates Latin American hispanics with actual immigrant Spaniards:
> The most common adaptation my interviewees reported to deal with the automatic association of Spain with Latin America was for them to disassociate from using the term Spanish as their primary identifier with Anglo-Americans. Rather as Susana, a 25-year-old ESL student, quite vividly noted they had to actively try to reinforce their geographic connection to Europe:
> Susana:
>“I’m not Spanish, I’m from Spain.” I always say that. In fact, I say “I’m from Es-pain” because I cannot say the [English] “s.” And they say “Olé” and laugh.
https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/23326492187663...
Though that, of course, is a different issue altogether!
Edit: After having a think, I'd say that there have been instances where in actual conversation I've heard individual Spanish people referred to as "a Spanish" rather than "a Spaniard." Which, of course, is wrong. It does feel like the word Spaniard has a rather historical, almost literary, sheen, so you don't hear it used in everyday conversation often. And so colloquially speaking, people are more likely to default to incorrect uses of Spanish as a noun. But that might be a misconception I've picked up, I freely admit.
Hint: the best kind of Mexican to be, used to be Peninsular.
Also, if you want to deflect from the Spanish, try looking at Guatemala. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guatemalan_genocide