[Aztlan] Aztlan Digest, Vol 26, Issue 21Tikal From Belize
rod44 at comcast.net
rod44 at comcast.net
Tue Jan 22 17:00:43 CST 2008
Jim Reed forgot to mention just past the Belize border to Tikal is the small and not developed site of
Tzikintzikan which is barely excavated. It is right by the road and takes about 1/2 hr to see anf has original wood lintels in place.
J. Rodtiguez
-------------- Original message ----------------------
From: aztlan-request at lists.famsi.org
> Send Aztlan mailing list submissions to
> aztlan at lists.famsi.org
>
> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
> http://www.famsi.org/mailman/listinfo/aztlan
> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
> aztlan-request at lists.famsi.org
>
> You can reach the person managing the list at
> aztlan-owner at lists.famsi.org
>
> When replying, please change the Subject line of your email to match
> the exact topic being discussed, and delete all but the most important
> text from previous messages.
>
>
> When replying, please remove all topics not related to your reply.
>
> Today's Topics:
>
> 1. Wikipedia policies (ECOLING at aol.com)
> 2. Re: WikiProject Mesoamerica (David Hixson)
> 3. Re: Belize to Tikal?? (mayaman at bellsouth.net)
> 4. repeat of post (Bernard Ortiz de Montellano)
> 5. Re: repeat of post (Galen Brokaw)
> 6. Re: repeat of post (Galen Brokaw)
>
>
> --**--**--**--**--**--**--**--**--**--**--**--**--**--**--**--**--**--**--**--**
> --**--**--**--**--**--**--**--**--**--**--**--**--**--**--**--**--**--**--**--**
> --**--**--**--**--**--**--**--**--**--**--**--**--**--**--**--**--**--**--**--**
> --**--**--**--**--**--**--**--**--**--**
>
> Message: 1
> Date: Mon, 21 Jan 2008 15:01:26 EST
> From: ECOLING at aol.com
> Subject: [Aztlan] Wikipedia policies
> To: aztlan at lists.famsi.org
> Message-ID: <bcc.1d2afde7.34c65416 at aol.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
>
> When I asked John Hoopes, he thought the following information
> had not been posted to Aztlan in the discussion of the Mesoamerican
> Wikipedia project. So here they are. They give general guidance on
> what is appropriate and not appropriate to put into Wikipedia articles.
>
> ***
>
> Three policies on content of articles:
>
> Neutral point of view
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia%3ANeutral_point_of_view
>
> Verifiability
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia%3AVerifiability
>
> No original research
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia%3ANo_original_research
>
>
> Others:
>
> General introduction
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia%3AAbout
>
> Policies and Guidelines
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia%3APolicies_and_guidelines
>
> What Wikipedia is Not
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia%3AWhat_Wikipedia_is_not
>
> There are also several policies on working well with others.
>
> ***
>
> Lloyd Anderson
> Ecological Linguistics
> PO Box 15156
> Washington DC 20003
> ecoling at aol.com
> 202-547-7683
>
>
>
> **************
> Start the year off right. Easy ways to stay in shape.
>
> http://body.aol.com/fitness/winter-exercise?NCID=aolcmp00300000002489
>
>
> --**--**--**--**--**--**--**--**--**--**--**--**--**--**--**--**--**--**--**--**
> --**--**--**--**--**--**--**--**--**--**
>
> Message: 2
> Date: Mon, 21 Jan 2008 12:52:35 -0800 (PST)
> From: David Hixson <aztlandave at yahoo.com>
> Subject: Re: [Aztlan] WikiProject Mesoamerica
> To: aztlan at lists.famsi.org
> Message-ID: <109752.85986.qm at web37013.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
>
> Lloyd is correct (see below) this message for some
> reason did not reach list members:
>
> -------------------------------
> FROM: Lloyd Anderson
>
> When I asked John Hoopes, he thought the following
> information
> had not been posted to Aztlan in the discussion of the
> Mesoamerican
> Wikipedia project. So here they are. They give
> general guidance on
> what is appropriate and not appropriate to put into
> Wikipedia articles.
>
> ***
>
> Three policies on content of articles:
>
> Neutral point of view
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia%3ANeutral_point_of_view
>
> Verifiability
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia%3AVerifiability
>
> No original research
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia%3ANo_original_research
>
>
> Others:
>
> General introduction
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia%3AAbout
>
> Policies and Guidelines
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia%3APolicies_and_guidelines
>
> What Wikipedia is Not
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia%3AWhat_Wikipedia_is_not
>
> There are also several policies on working well with
> others.
>
> ***
>
> Lloyd Anderson
> Ecological Linguistics
> PO Box 15156
> Washington DC 20003
> ecoling at aol.com
> 202-547-7683
>
>
>
>
> ________________________________________________________________________________
> ____
> Be a better friend, newshound, and
> know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it now.
> http://mobile.yahoo.com/;_ylt=Ahu06i62sR8HDtDypao8Wcj9tAcJ
>
>
>
> --**--**--**--**--**--**--**--**--**--**--**--**--**--**--**--**--**--**--**--**
> --**--**--**--**--**--**--**--**--**--**
>
> Message: 3
> Date: Mon, 21 Jan 2008 21:00:44 +0000
> From: mayaman at bellsouth.net
> Subject: Re: [Aztlan] Belize to Tikal??
> To: aztlan at lists.famsi.org
> Message-ID:
>
> <012120082100.9583.479507FB000C816B0000256F22230682229B0A02D2089B9A019C04040A0DB
> F020E030E970E03 at att.net>
>
>
>
> Hello, Ed,
>
> So much depends on how much time you have and how much money you plan on
> spending. Beyond the attraction of the islands and reefs, there lots of Maya
> history to explore in Belize. If you start from Belize City, there are 3
> directions to go. The Northern Highway with sites like Cerros, Cuello, Lamanai
> and Altun Ha; the Southern Highway along the coast, to Lubantunn, and Ni Li
> Punit; or the Western Highway to the Cayo District and Mountain Pine Ridge. The
> town of San Ignacio (Cayo) is usually the area that most folks make their "base
> of operations", especially if you are wanting to enter Guatemala and see Tikal.
>
> I suggest Googling Hotels in Cayo and start from there. Most hotels will arrange
> to pick you up at the Belize airport and bring you out to where all the action
> is. Around Cayo, there are lots of Maya sites to see, like Caracol, Xunantunich,
> Cahal Pech and El Pilar. There's also great caving nowadays, with a couple caves
> that you can wade (swim) or tube through. From there alot depends on if you plan
> on using public transport from the border to enter Guatemala to reach Flores or
> Tikal or if you go with a pre-arranged transport from your hotel in Cayo. Convi
> vans can be arranged to pick you up at your hotel and take you all the way to
> Tikal (through the border too). Most all the hotels offer to plan your trip to
> Tikal for you. Also the site of Yaxha is along the way, not far off the road to
> Flores, before you turn to the north to go to Tikal. This road has been known as
> the "Bandito Highway", but things have calmed down in recent years. Not to
> worry. It is really nice if you c!
> an arra
> nge to stay in Tikal for 1 or 2 nights. And I think you can still arrange
> "special permission" to go back into the main plaza and Temple 3 of the site for
> sunset and a couple hours more. I love walking trails at night. A night in the
> island city of Flores is great too if you have the time.
>
> If your flight out of Belize is in the afternoon, you can still stay in Cayo on
> your last night and make it to the airport without having to spend the night in
> Belize City. I'll be taking a group of about 12 folks to Tikal by way of Belize
> at the end of July of this year. It is really a nice area to visit. Years ago, I
> lived in Soccutz village, which is near the western border, right where the
> ferry crossing to Xunantunich is. Tubing or kayaking in the river is something
> to consider also.
>
> Jim Reed
>
>
> --**--**--**--**--**--**--**--**--**--**--**--**--**--**--**--**--**--**--**--**
> --**--**--**--**--**--**--**--**--**--**
>
> Message: 4
> Date: Tue, 22 Jan 2008 00:33:38 -0600
> From: Bernard Ortiz de Montellano <bortiz at earthlink.net>
> Subject: [Aztlan] repeat of post
> To: aztlan at lists.famsi.org
> Message-ID: <a06020402c3bb3e894660@[192.168.1.100]>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed"
>
> 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
>
>
> --**--**--**--**--**--**--**--**--**--**--**--**--**--**--**--**--**--**--**--**
> --**--**--**--**--**--**--**--**--**--**
>
> Message: 5
> Date: Tue, 22 Jan 2008 08:49:42 -0500
> From: Galen Brokaw <brokaw at buffalo.edu>
> Subject: Re: [Aztlan] repeat of post
> To: Bernard Ortiz de Montellano <bortiz at earthlink.net>
> Cc: aztlan at lists.famsi.org
> Message-ID: <4795F476.9060906 at buffalo.edu>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
>
> 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
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
> --**--**--**--**--**--**--**--**--**--**--**--**--**--**--**--**--**--**--**--**
> --**--**--**--**--**--**--**--**--**--**
>
> Message: 6
> Date: Tue, 22 Jan 2008 09:31:36 -0500
> From: Galen Brokaw <brokaw at buffalo.edu>
> Subject: Re: [Aztlan] repeat of post
> To: Bernard Ortiz de Montellano <bortiz at earthlink.net>
> Cc: aztlan at lists.famsi.org
> Message-ID: <4795FE48.5000105 at buffalo.edu>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
>
> 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
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
> --**--**--**--**--**--**--**--**--**--**--**--**--**--**--**--**--**--**--**--**
> --**--**--**--**--**--**--**--**--**--**
>
> _______________________________________________
> Aztlan mailing list
> Click here to send a message Aztlan at lists.famsi.org
> http://www.famsi.org/mailman/listinfo/aztlan
>
>
> End of Aztlan Digest, Vol 26, Issue 21
> **************************************
More information about the Aztlan
mailing list