[Aztlan] repeat of post

[Galen Brokaw]

Bernard's message and my response were meant for Nahuat-l rather than 
Aztlan. It seems that the discussion that we were having on Nahuat-l 
accidentally got transferred here to Aztlan. Those of you who are not 
subscribed to both lists may be confused about where this came from. 
Sorry about the confusion.
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
> 
> 
>