The cluster index

Which worlds
keep meeting?

Every proposed comparison here joins two cultural traditions. Gathered as clusters, they show where this collection’s questions concentrate — and where an ordinary explanation is already on the table.

A cluster is an index entry, not a verdict. Counting comparisons cannot make them independent, and nothing below establishes that two traditions ever met.

23 culture pairs · 19 distinct comparisons · 18 with no route established

Pillar 43, western carved face, photographed at Göbekli Tepe — **Pillar 43**Göbekli Tepe · 10th–9th millennia BCE

Birdman carvings on the back of Hoa Hakananai’a — **Hoa Hakananai’a · back**Rapa Nui · later carvings, date open

The densest cluster

Göbekli Tepe
& Rapa Nui.

One pair carries more separate comparisons than any other in the collection: birds beside rounded forms, hands drawn across a torso, ribs cut into a lean body. Two of the three lines have been examined against sources rather than only collected.

No transmission route has been established for any of them — and about 16,900 km of ocean and land, plus several millennia, separate the registered contexts. That distance is a reason to look harder at the objects, not evidence of a link.

Birdmen across two worldsEvidence examined · No route established in this review
Hands drawn toward the bodySources partly checked · No route established in this review
Bodies with visible ribsSources partly checked · No route established in this review

Open the cluster ↗ Or start from the two photographs →

The whole field

A sparse table.

23 of the 210 possible pairings between these traditions carry a comparison. Sparseness describes what has been collected, not a measurement of the world.

Cultural traditions compared with one another; each filled cell opens that cluster.
	Rapanui traditions	Mesopotamian accounts	Neolithic Anatolia	Assyrian imagery	Olmec La Venta	Tiwanaku	Andean accounts	Identity still open	Nahua accounts	Arnhem Land · attribution open	Epiclassic Cacaxtla	Greek Delphi	Indus / Harappan	Jiroft region	Lingjiatan	Maya Chichén Itzá	Mississippian Cahokia	Muisca accounts	Old Kingdom Egypt	Pohnpei · story untraced	Vedic textual tradition
Rapanui traditions			3	2		2					1	1	1				1
Mesopotamian accounts							1		1									1		1	1
Neolithic Anatolia	3			1	1	1				1
Assyrian imagery	2		1		1	1
Olmec La Venta			1	1				1						1
Tiwanaku	2		1	1
Andean accounts		1							1
Identity still open					1										1
Nahua accounts		1					1
Arnhem Land · attribution open			1
Epiclassic Cacaxtla	1
Greek Delphi	1
Indus / Harappan	1
Jiroft region					1
Lingjiatan								1
Maya Chichén Itzá																			1
Mississippian Cahokia	1
Muisca accounts		1
Old Kingdom Egypt																1
Pohnpei · story untraced		1
Vedic textual tradition		1

Open after a source checkOpen, not yet assessedContext or documented exchange

Each number is how many separate lines of comparison the pair carries. The ranked index below carries the same information as text.

Every cluster

Where the questions concentrate.

Ordered by how many comparisons remain open after a source check — never by how strong or how independent the evidence is.

Reading a cluster

What a cluster
cannot tell you.

A line of comparison is one proposed resemblance between two traditions. Its subcomparisons — a narrower look at the same pair of objects — are counted inside it, because they are not separate evidence.

“No route established” records the state of this review. 14 pairs reached that state after a source check; the rest are open mainly because their identifications are still unresolved. An unchecked lead is weaker than a checked one, not stronger.

Examples were selected because they resemble each other. That selection cannot tell us how often such forms occur worldwide, and similar human bodies, tools and birds constrain what any carver can produce.

Browse the motif families ↗Download the cluster index ↗See what every input became ↗

Which worlds
keep meeting?

Göbekli Tepe
& Rapa Nui.

A sparse table.

Where the questions concentrate.

Neolithic Anatolia ↔ Rapanui traditions

Rapanui traditions ↔ Tiwanaku

Assyrian imagery ↔ Rapanui traditions

Assyrian imagery ↔ Tiwanaku

Epiclassic Cacaxtla ↔ Rapanui traditions

Andean accounts ↔ Mesopotamian accounts

Andean accounts ↔ Nahua accounts

Assyrian imagery ↔ Neolithic Anatolia

Assyrian imagery ↔ Olmec La Venta

Mesopotamian accounts ↔ Nahua accounts

Neolithic Anatolia ↔ Olmec La Venta

Neolithic Anatolia ↔ Tiwanaku

Indus / Harappan ↔ Rapanui traditions

Mesopotamian accounts ↔ Muisca accounts

Jiroft region ↔ Olmec La Venta

Arnhem Land · attribution open ↔ Neolithic Anatolia

Greek Delphi ↔ Rapanui traditions

Old Kingdom Egypt ↔ Maya Chichén Itzá

Lingjiatan ↔ Identity still open

Mesopotamian accounts ↔ Pohnpei · story untraced

Mississippian Cahokia ↔ Rapanui traditions

Olmec La Venta ↔ Identity still open

Mesopotamian accounts ↔ Vedic textual tradition

What a cluster
cannot tell you.

Göbekli Tepe& Rapa Nui.

A sparse table.

Where the questions concentrate.

Neolithic Anatolia ↔ Rapanui traditions

Rapanui traditions ↔ Tiwanaku

Assyrian imagery ↔ Rapanui traditions

Assyrian imagery ↔ Tiwanaku

Epiclassic Cacaxtla ↔ Rapanui traditions

Andean accounts ↔ Mesopotamian accounts

Andean accounts ↔ Nahua accounts

Assyrian imagery ↔ Neolithic Anatolia

Assyrian imagery ↔ Olmec La Venta

Mesopotamian accounts ↔ Nahua accounts

Neolithic Anatolia ↔ Olmec La Venta

Neolithic Anatolia ↔ Tiwanaku

Indus / Harappan ↔ Rapanui traditions

Mesopotamian accounts ↔ Muisca accounts

Jiroft region ↔ Olmec La Venta

Arnhem Land · attribution open ↔ Neolithic Anatolia

Greek Delphi ↔ Rapanui traditions

Old Kingdom Egypt ↔ Maya Chichén Itzá

Lingjiatan ↔ Identity still open

Mesopotamian accounts ↔ Pohnpei · story untraced

Mississippian Cahokia ↔ Rapanui traditions

Olmec La Venta ↔ Identity still open

Mesopotamian accounts ↔ Vedic textual tradition

What a clustercannot tell you.

Göbekli Tepe
& Rapa Nui.

What a cluster
cannot tell you.