[Aztlan] Zero does not mean

[John Major Jenkins]

Jorge,

The evidence that 0.0.0.0.0 was seen by the Maya as being equivalent to
13.0.0.0.0 derives from, as I mentioned, all the known Long Count dates.
If we count these backward to their mathematical origin point, in which
all five place values reach zero, we arrive at the date in 3114 BC that
is elsewhere referenced as 13.0.0.0.0. Again, this illustrates a
conceptual equivalency between 0.0.0.0.0 and 13.0.0.0.0. Anticipating a
diversionary sidetrack, if you want to say that 0.0.0.0.1 is preceded by
13.0.0.0.0 that still doesn’t mitigate my point that 0.0.0.0.0 would be
conceptually equivalent to 13.0.0.0.0. 

For the benefit of the list for whom my previous response to Jorge was
scrambled:

Jorge,

Vases of 7 and 13 Lords - It is widely acknowledged that the CR
designations on these vases, with its supporting textual references,
relate to the so-called Creation date in 3114; thus to 0.0.0.0.0 (or
13.0.0.0.0, however you prefer to label it). Copan: Are you unaware of
the Copan references? I think it sort of derails the discussion and the
point I was making, which you haven't really addressed, to request
citations. Pull Maya Cosmos off the shelf and look it up. Palenque: I
was not referring to Pakal's politically motivated info on the 20-Baktun
date, but to other texts at Palenque that reference the CR position of
0.0.0.0.0 in 3114 BC. Therefore, your critique is misplaced. On
Tortuguero you wrote: "this could very possibly be just a mention of the
end of the 13th. baktun; in and of itself, it does not prove
either a special significance of the date—beyond that of a period
ending-or that there couldn't or wouldn't be a 14th." That's a
fascinating and self-contradicting interpretation of Tortuguero Monument
6 - valid perhaps as a far-out speculation that we must entertain - but
it ignores and contradicts the current consensus on the decipherment,
meaning, and importance of that monument. It is important to provide an
analogy or example for ones position - can you provide a precedent or
example of your speculation? In support of my premise that 13.0.0.0.0 is
the end of a cycle, and is not followed by 14.0.0.0.0 but is in practice
analogous to 0.0.0.0.0, we can draw from the 13.0.0.0.0 references to
3114 BC. Because of the other Long Count's dates on record from the
pre-Classic and Classic Periods, it is clear that 13.0.0.0.0 in 3114 BC
was treated as being equivalent to 0.0.0.0.0. Bereft of any
contradicting evidence, and any evidence for your speculation, that
concept can also be applied as a working hypothesis to Tortuguero's
reference to 13.0.0.0.0 in 2012. 

JMJ    

-----Original Message-----
From: aztlan-bounces at lists.famsi.org
[mailto:aztlan-bounces at lists.famsi.org] On Behalf Of Jorge Pérez de Lara
Elías
Sent: Tuesday, July 22, 2008 9:05 AM
To: Aztlan
Subject: [Aztlan] Zero does not mean

Listeros,

I hope this does not sound like an 'ad hominem' objection, but it is  
important to note that John Major Jenkins' claim (in one of his  
previous postings responding to Lloyd):

Specifically, it supports the deduction that 0.0.0.0.0 (in 3114 BC)  
and 13.0.0.0.0 (in 2012) are "like-in-kind" events.

is void in that there are no 0.0.0.0.0 examples. The three 4 Ajaw 8  
Kumk'u dates associated to a Long Count date that we know of in the  
Classic (Cobá Stela 1, a well-known Yaxchilán ballplayer lintel and  
Quiriguá Stela C) are either 13.13.13.13.13.13.13.13.13.13.13.0.0.0.0  
or simply 13.0.0.0.0. This is to say there are no examples of  
0.0.0.0.0 written by the Maya, so how can anybody claim that  
13.0.0.0.0 (with or without a larger string of 13s preceding it) is  
equivalent to 0.0.0.0.0. There is no evidence that the Maya thought so.

Jorge
_______________________________________________
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