Here's my problem with it being an Old World monkey: All of the traits might point to it being an Old World monkey.
But it's not a photograph and it's not a living specimen. It's a piece of art.
Art is often embellished. If you look at Meso-American sculptures of dogs, they often have featurs that are very like this monkey. It is the result of artistic convention, not because the dogs actually looked like this. Just do a google search of Pre-Columbian Meso-American dog art.
You know Mickey Mouse doesn't look anything like a real mouse. It's likely the same here.
I think it's more likely a bald uakari, which would have been a greatly treasured specimen. It would have been very worthy of a sculpture.
However, it is likely that the artistic convention was to make this animal look more human. Humans are Great Apes, which, if we follow phylogenetics closely, are actually within the Old World monkeys.
I should also note that another thing that is not evidence for Chinese contact with the Americas is the so-called Chinese crested dog.
That dog is actually derived from the Mexican hairless (xoloitzcuintli) and fluffy toy dogs that were bred together in New York, starting in the 1880s.
Unlike so many fine things these days, this dog was actually made in the USA, not China.
As for the wrinkles, one way the Aztecs and other Meso-Americans depicted hairlessness in their dogs was put wrinkles on their depictions of the dogs. The dog sculptures have more wrinkles on them than any hairless dog ever had. Xoloitzcuinli don't have a lot of wrinkles. They look like hairless dingoes.
So if that is anything to base our analysis. The wrinkles are suggesting a bald head, which points to a balk uakari.
I have a very good book on Meso-American dog art, which is very worth reading:
Here's my problem with it being an Old World monkey: All of the traits might point to it being an Old World monkey.
ReplyDeleteBut it's not a photograph and it's not a living specimen. It's a piece of art.
Art is often embellished. If you look at Meso-American sculptures of dogs, they often have featurs that are very like this monkey. It is the result of artistic convention, not because the dogs actually looked like this. Just do a google search of Pre-Columbian Meso-American dog art.
You know Mickey Mouse doesn't look anything like a real mouse. It's likely the same here.
I think it's more likely a bald uakari, which would have been a greatly treasured specimen. It would have been very worthy of a sculpture.
However, it is likely that the artistic convention was to make this animal look more human. Humans are Great Apes, which, if we follow phylogenetics closely, are actually within the Old World monkeys.
I should also note that another thing that is not evidence for Chinese contact with the Americas is the so-called Chinese crested dog.
ReplyDeleteThat dog is actually derived from the Mexican hairless (xoloitzcuintli) and fluffy toy dogs that were bred together in New York, starting in the 1880s.
Unlike so many fine things these days, this dog was actually made in the USA, not China.
As for the wrinkles, one way the Aztecs and other Meso-Americans depicted hairlessness in their dogs was put wrinkles on their depictions of the dogs. The dog sculptures have more wrinkles on them than any hairless dog ever had. Xoloitzcuinli don't have a lot of wrinkles. They look like hairless dingoes.
ReplyDeleteSo if that is anything to base our analysis. The wrinkles are suggesting a bald head, which points to a balk uakari.
I have a very good book on Meso-American dog art, which is very worth reading:
http://www.amazon.com/History-Dogs-Early-Americas/dp/0300075197