[Aztlan] zero does not mean "shell"

[D. M. Urquidi]

Folks:

This began an interesting thread, I think.

> The most objective stance is to call
> what was formerly, and possibly mistakenly, designated
> 0.0.0.0.0 "shell.shell.shell.shell.shell."  I personally
> think that's rather silly, but that would be the safe scientific 
> position.  

The first comment that struck my eye, was that the "objective stance is . . . . but that would be the 'safe' scientific position"

What is scientific about guess work? True, the "shell" symbol has been "proven" (here actually "assumed") to be a true zero, but who has spoken with an actual Aztec or Maya from the time (or era) the codices were written?
 
> If a future culture encountered our mathematical symbol of
> "0" or the string 0.0.0.0.0 it would be completely logical for them to
> identify this as "circle.circle.circle.circle.circle"
> until further evidence proved otherwise.

The other item is that "the string 0.0.0.0.0 would be logical" even though it has never been used in any codex at all. So how can it be called "logical" or even "scientific"?

I am a bit confused by this. I do believe that the zero could be the "shell" glyph, but the 0.0.0.0.0 has no further evidence that I am aware of, figuratively or literally.

Dea