3 ms·
https://www.atlasobscura.com/places/tikal-howler-monkeys https://www.atlasobscura.com/places/tikal-howler-monkeys > According to the sacred book of creation my
by suzzer99 4y ago
https://www.atlasobscura.com/places/tikal-howler-monkeys https://www.atlasobscura.com/places/tikal-howler-monkeys
> According to the sacred book of creation myths, the Popol Vuh, primates were a life form that had arisen during one of the many earlier experimental periods of creation by the gods.
> According to the myth, the gods were ultimately disappointed with the result, which they found to be too frivolous and rebellious and thus strove to perfect and shape the form of some of the monkeys.
Maybe "flat out wrong" was too harsh. But I don't think this is exactly right. The earlier attempt were men made out of wood, who almost all drowned in a great flood. The few survivors turned into monkeys. The second attempt at man was made out of maize, and those survived to become humans.
But I don't think there's anything about the gods being displeased because the first creation were monkeys. Monkeys from what I understand were more of a byproduct.
- smcin 4y agoI'd say that was one minor error in one article (10 paragraphs, 24 sentences) of their ~25K articles. It's not even that that single article is "flat out wrong": only that paragraph (and maybe the heading). Can you cite any other article as being wrong? AO looks more reliable than Wikipedia (obviously much lower coverage).
- suzzer99 4y agoYeah maybe I was too harsh. But I only knew that because I'm writing a book that features Mesoamerica and my factchecker told me it was wrong. Which made me think there may be other things that are wrong that I don't have access to an expert on.