Japanese Macaque or snow-monkey.
This one shows a little bit of exposed brow with transverse wrinkles as shown on the Mexican statuette and sometimes known to occur in this species.
Among the other features like the statuette ase the long upper lip hanging down in the middle and the narrow nose with pinched nostrils. This is what is known as a Catarhinne nose and is typical for Old-World monkeys. The nose of the creature on the statue is of this type.
Brett had suggested that the wrinkles down along the lower part of the face could represent "Cheek tufts" and as a matter of fact Japanese macaques have such cheek tufts of hair growing on their faces while uakaris DON'T. Furthermore, macaques can have the wrinkles also down along the cheeks because they actually have cheek pouches, which can look "deflated" when empty. The cheek pouches are also diagnostic of the Old-World monkeys.
I don't think you understand art.
ReplyDeleteArt is not a photograph.
Read my blog post on this issue before being so dismissive.
http://retrieverman.wordpress.com/2011/03/24/monkey-business/
Before writing anything on science, please familiarize yourself with the principle of parsimony.
We have no conclusive evidence that any Chinese or Japanese contact with Mexico. We have some evidence, but it's not conclusive.
If it's not conclusive, we can't say that it's so, or make broad assumptions.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4zn02AfCkEA
ReplyDeleteCheek tufts/mutton chops.
AND I don't think YOU understand art, especially when you stand there and say a plain depiction of a Cattarhinne nose is intended to mean a Plattyrhine nose when the artist is supoposed to have had no ay of knowing what a Cattarhinne nose even LOOKED like.
ReplyDeleteAnd if you're going to tell me that the statue does indeed mean to depict a Uakari's nose, I am very much afraid thayt I shall have to cast aspersions on your ability to recognise depictions of ANY monkeys in art, whatever qualifications you may claim.
The situation is that it is simply NOT a good representation of a Uakari. And, saying so, your invocation of Parsomony is most NON-Parsimonious. Parsimony in this case is that the evidence indicates contact.
And if you are merely going to repeat yourself beyond this point, it will do absolutely nothing to change the situation that you have an indefensible of argument. And if you don't mind my saying so, a ridiculous adherance to an obviuosly false point of view simply to toe an already-creaky party line. If the issue is whether or not there WAS any transpacific contact, you cannot immediately use the argument "there is no evidence of such contact" as an argument, because the invocation of that statement represents a logical fallacy in such a context. Besides which on the companion blog we are EXACTLY discussing the possibility of transpacific contact, backed by several reliable Archaeologists as sources.
Next time I'd thank you not to tell a museum-certified evaluator of and restorer ot so-called Primiive artworks and a professional artist that he "Doesn't understand Art"
Japanese macaques have more obvious "Mutton Chops" than any uakari monkey, and the explanation I gave of the wrinkles ariound the face are more congruent with both the face of the sculpture and the face of a Japanese macaque.
ReplyDeleteAnd you still have NO earthly way you can make a reasonable argument about the nose of the sculpture supposedly representing the nose of a uakari.
This argument has dragged on and on unnecessarily for some time. I keep getting comments saying "well, it LOOKS like a macaque's nose, BUT...""
ReplyDeleteThere simply is no BUT to the discussion. A New World Monkey's nose looks one way and an Old World monkey's nose looks completely different. There is simply no way that a New World Artist could be looking at a New World monkey's nose and IMAGINE an Old World monkey's nose.
Imagine the gall of someone that tries to talk you out of a basic Zoological tenet for the sake of some generic philosophical platitude that has been allowed to stand unchallenged for far too long. Only ONE possible transpacific contact disproves the ENTIRE notion of "No transpacific contact has ever occurred" and it is already KNOWN that Japanese fishing boats used to wash up on the Western Coast of the US all of the time: early anthropologists working among the Northwest Coast Indians found that they had taken many Japanese slaves from shipwrecks driven across the Pacific by storms. This is a documented fact and found in Anthropological works of the highest accepted authority. Any ONE of those Japanese fishermen might have had a pet monkey aboard. There is simply no support to ARGUE the point endlessly by saying "BUT..."
And I'll stand for no more slurs on my artistic talents from people that have not even bothered to look at my work, thank you very much!
Best Wishes, Dale D.