[Aztlan] FW: 360 and stones; HAAB' and TUUN

[Bryan R. Just]

Listeros,

 

I have two sets of quick comments related to this 'tuun' discussion - one
epigraphic/calendrical and the other iconographic.

 

1)  While haab' does seem the reading of the LC glyphs for the 360-day
period, 'tuun' is used in references to period-ending ceremonies.  Late
stelae at Machaquila provide rather unique examples of the simultaneous use
of 360-, 364-, and 365-day units for the timing of ho'tuun ceremonies.  On
MQL stela 3, for example, two dates are noted for the commemoration of
NAJ-HO'-TUUN-n(i), '(the) first five-tuun' (G4b).  Now, this isn't the fifth
stela erected by this lord (it's his first), so the 'five-tuun' collocation
to me seems calendrical.  I'm not clear how this use of 'tuun' is related to
'haab,'  but, at least at Machaquila, 'tuun' was associated with various
approximations of the solar year.

 

2)  I've always assumed the 'cauac' iconography simply represents 'stone.'
In addition to the 'tuun' glyph the 'grape cluster' and the cross-hatched
circular markings, as well as fissure-like striations, ubiquitously appear
in imagery of stones and caves.  As naturalistic elements (which become
stylized motifs, of course), I suspect the grape cluster references natural
erosion patterns of karst (or perhaps stalactites), which I have seen on
exposed vertical karst formations.  The darkened areas seem to me 'pockets'
in limestone produced by water erosion.  While I suspect such iconography
derived particularly from limestone's appearance, it is applied to other
sorts of stone, too, such as chert.  A quick Google image search for 'karst'
brought up some images that I think illustrate this iconographic
interpretation;

 

http://www.famsi.org/aztlan/uploads/karst-1.jpg

 

http://www.famsi.org/aztlan/uploads/karst-2.jpg (a particular type of
stalactite, a bit 'grape-like')

 

 

Bryan

 

 

 

Bryan R. Just, Ph.D.

Curatorial Assistant, Art of the Americas

Princeton University Art Museum

 

-----Original Message-----
From: aztlan-bounces at lists.famsi.org [mailto:aztlan-bounces at lists.famsi.org]
On Behalf Of Harold H. Green

 

 

 

Sent: Tuesday, March 27, 2007 10:13 AM
To: AZATLAN
Subject: [Aztlan] 360 and stones; HAAB' and TUUN

 

Listeros:

 

In Maya Hieroglyphic Writing (p. 105), Thompson states:  "In texts of  

the Classical Period

which give IS, the first glyph is the IS introductory glyph, the  

central element of which is a variable.

... [T]he variable element changes according to the month of the IS,  

and ...

there are 18 forms ... corresponding to the 18 months. A nineteenth form

pertaining to Uayeb has not been identified because no IS falling in  

the five

unlucky days has yet been found ... ."   Is this still true, that no  

Initial Series date falling in the

Wayeb period has been found?

 

In the same work (p. 125), Thompson states: "I think it is doubtful  

that the Maya had any distinct name for the

year of 365 days, but instead they probably used the names for the  

year of 360 days loosely

to refer also to the 365-period, for actually, there was no year of  

365 days, but one of 360 days,

to the end of which were added the five nameless days."  Is there any  

evidence at present that

would contradict this observation of Thompson's?

 

It is my understanding that epigraphers are now agreed that HAAB'  is  

the logograph for the

360-day cycle (what Thompson has called the "chronological unit" of  

the Long Count) and

that HAAB' may have referred in some contexts to a period of 365  

days, but that it never was

used to mean "stone" or "precious stone," and further that TUUN is  

the logograph for "stone" or

"precious stone" but never was used to mean 360, 365 or indeed any  

number. Is this under-

standing correct?

 

In his 1996 article "Kings of Stone" (Res 29/30, p. 150), David  

Stuart states: "Despite the

considerable time depth of (Maya) temporal records, the precise  

symbolic connection between

tuns and time units of 360 or 7,200 days, while evidently extremely  

close, remains poorly

understood." Since David Stuart's brilliant analysis in "Kings of  

Stone," have there been

further developments regarding this connection?

 

Thanks.

 

Hal Green

Vashon, WA

 

_______________________________________________

Aztlan mailing list

Aztlan at lists.famsi.org

http://www.famsi.org/mailman/listinfo/aztlan