[Aztlan] repeat of post

[Galen Brokaw]

I sent that garbled message through my university's new webmail program. 
Maybe that was the problem. Here it is again.

My main point here has to do with the way in which one engages in 
scholarly debate, not with the accuracy of Brotherston's work. Of 
course, the burden of proof of any given argument is on the claimant, 
but that includes the claimant who wishes to refute someone else's 
argument. Of course, such refutations can be made on both substantive 
and methodological grounds. It is perfectly legitimate to point out 
logical or methodological flaws that invalidate an argument, as Bernard 
seems to do. My point is that you can't just dismiss someone's work by 
merely asserting that it is fantasy. Bernard, it seems to me that your 
criticism engages with Brotherston's work in a perfectly legitimate way, 
and I have no problem with that. This type of engagement makes possible 
a responsible dialogue about substantive issues. For example, although I 
haven't searched for the passage that you cite in your message, just 
based on that quote in isolation, one could argue that your criticism of 
this statement is based on a misreading: it doesn't seem to me that 
Brotherston is claiming that "the Aztecs contrived their creation story 
so that one day in their 260 day ritual calendar would match the Spring 
Equinox of a year some 4700 years in the past." In the quote, he says 
that it "incidentally coincides" with the spring equinox. Saying that it 
is incidental by definition means that it was not contrived. In 
isolation at least, Brotherston's statement merely seems to be pointing 
out the fact that the systematicity of the calendar has certain 
incidental effects that contribute to our understanding of its 
systematicity. In the larger context of the quote, maybe there would be 
more to say. In the case of the serpents and the numerical significance 
of their dots, I don't have an answer. Maybe you have a valid criticism 
there. This is precisely the point, which is that we can discuss these 
things and disagree about them in substantive terms rather than 
dismissing them out of hand. As I said before, I'm not claiming that 
Brotherston's work is flawless. Whose is? However, even if it is more 
fraught with error and/or speculation than other work in the field, that 
does not mean that it is pseudo-scholarship.

Galen


Bernard Ortiz de Montellano wrote:
> Apparently my post was garbled, here is the text:
> 
> Some years ago I looked pretty closely at Brotherston's Painted Books 
> of Mexico and found that it contained many claims that were pure 
> numerology as well as mistakes in Nahuatl etymology, and claims about 
> iconography and  Aztec culture well outside accepted consensus of 
> mesoamerican scholars. Just one theoretical point-- when 
> extraordinary claims are made the burden of proof is on the claimant 
> - not on the critics. I'll just quote a point I wrote about such 
> claims:
> 
>   Continuing on this claim [by Brotherston], "Another Mexican text 
> which deals, significantly, with the world ages is the celebrated Sun 
> Stone of Tenochtitlan, where the same span can be read from the 
> numerals embedded in the cloud snakes (mixcoac) that rim its disk, 
> this time as a hundred (ten by ten) Rounds each of fifty two years. 
> The name which the Sun Stone gives to the Era Four Ollin, 
> incidentally coincides with the spring equinox of 3113 BC in the 
> Mesoamerican international day count." This last claim is sheer 
> fantasy. Do we really believe that the Aztecs contrived their 
> creation story so that one day in their 260 day ritual calendar would 
> match the Spring Equinox some of a year some 4700 years in the past, 
> when there is mass confusion about dates less than 100 years in the 
> past.
> 
> E. Matos Moctezuma, La Piedra del Sol, Calendario Azteca. Mexico. 
> 1992 provides a more up-to-date and more orthodox view that the 
> serpents around the border of the stone are not cloud but fire 
> serpents. Continuing with ad-hoc numerology, now the magic number is 
> to be reached by multiplying the 10 x 10 dots on the body of one 
> serpent (why just one serpent and not the total in both serpents?) by 
> a calendar round of 52 years. However, the Calendar Stone has no 
> reference to the calendar round which involves multiplying 13 times 
> the 4 days called "year bearers (reed, house, rabbit, flint), so that 
> this connection is invented by Brotherston. Additionally, the great 
> Maya cycle of 5200 years proceeded by powers of 20 modified by a unit 
> of 360 rather than the expected 400 (to accommodate the reality of a 
> solar year). It did not involve the calendar round of 52 years as 
> unit. This unit was used by the Aztecs precisely because they did not 
> know how to handle the larger Maya time units.
> 
> There is also something that is problematic with Brotherston's claim. 
> Also attached is a xerox of the serpents in question. Besides the 
> squares with ten dots embedded in the body of the serpents there is 
> an eleventh square with 17 dots at the end. On what basis was this 
> square which is identical except for the number of dots omitted 
> except that it would nullify the conclusion that Brotherston is 
> trying to support?
> Bernard Ortiz de Montellano
> _______________________________________________
> Aztlan mailing list
> http://www.famsi.org/mailman/listinfo/aztlan
> Click here to post a message Aztlan at lists.famsi.org
> Click to view Calendar of Events http://research.famsi.org/events/events.php
> 
> 
>