[Aztlan] zero does not mean "shell"

[David Hixson]

Not to delve too far into Lloyd's and JMJ's recent comments, but I would like to add one observation regarding the shell glyph...

I have seen many lectures (although I do not know if this is in print anywhere - I would appreciate any references others may know about), that the Maya shell (or any other signs that are generally interpreted as "zero" could equally be seen as "complete" or "full".  Mathematically, they would function the same way, but it would be a difference in emic perception of the place value.  In other words, the Maya vigesimal system could be seen as:

shell, 1, 2, 3, 4... 19

or

1, 2, 3... 18, 19, shell

In other words, in the second instance the shell is NOT twenty, but simply "full" or "complete" -- indicating the need to move over a place value.

Again, mathematically, the results are the same.  But the perception of that particular place value may be different in western culture vs. the scribes of the ancient Maya.

So, to make any conjectural interpretation of the reason why "shell = zero" (such as "empty" or "hollow") would be inappropriate.

-Dave
____________________________
David R. Hixson
PhD Candidate
Tulane University
chunchucmil at yahoo.com