[Aztlan] "13" maybe not counting at all!

[ECOLING at aol.com]

 Here is why I do not agree with Michael Finley's posting.
 (And I think I am being just as level-headed as ever,
 as he was so kind to label me in other contexts.)
  
 There are serious gaps in the logic, unnoticed.
As usual, it is the questions people don't think to ask
which can completely undermine a line of reasoning.
  
 <<The whole thing really rests on the
undisputed fact that in the inscriptions,  creation is written
13.0.0.0.0 rather than 0.0.0.0.0.0, >>
  
 Sometimes it is so written.   Much more often I think it is
written 4 Ajaw 8 Kumk'u, with no long count at all.
If we stop there, we do not know *why* creation is written 13.0.0.0.0
when it is written that way.
 Michael's sentence was ambiguous about whether the term
 "undisputed" applies also to the next clause:
 <<suggesting  that an earlier "world" had subsisted for 13 baktuns.>>
 I would argue that the undisputed fact of the preceding paragraph
*does not* suggest the claim in this paragraph at all,
 that it is the writer who is suggesting this, and choosing here one out
 of several possible interpretations.  I do not mean this trivially
 or to be picky.  

It is not obvious that the "13" is counting anything at all!
That is a fundamental question here, not usually asked.
  
 For example, a Coba stela and a Yaxchilan "Ballplayer" lintel
 both have a long string of 13's leading up in at least the second case to a
 perfectly normal long count 9.x.x.x.x.  
This makes it seem much more likely that the string of "13's" 
have some symbolic value than that they are counts of anything. 
  
 As I have suggested, I think it means "ancient" and "completed."
 That is not any kind of counting.   
Such a suggestion is merely that,
I can cite some instances which make it at least possible or
plausible, I can't judge which, but not evidence to make it more
probable than that, not so far at least.
  
 A second reason is that if a Pictun actually were composed
 of 13 Baktuns, then we would never see the coefficient "13",
 we would only see a "1" in the next position, so we would only see
 the era data as 1.0.0.0.0.0 (that is with five "0" places),
 never 13.0.0.0.0.
  
 In our system, it is like saying that if our system really were 10-based,
 but we used base units at each multiple of 10 rather than a place-notation 
system,
as the Maya did,
 then we would never see a number expressed as "10" units of a hundred,
 we would only see that number expressed as "1" unit of a thousand.
 As all readers of this message know, we have only ten numerals,
 0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9.  We do not have a numeral digit "10".
 So if the Mayan system were really Base-13 at this point,
 we would never see a "13" in that position.  
(The Maya system of long counts is base-18 at the
 transition of Winals to Tuuns, since 360 = 18 x 20, so similarly
 we do not normally (ever?) see the digit "18" in the Winal position
 of a date or distance number.   We only see 0 to 17 there.
  
 (There are interesting abnormalities in rare instances. 
 I think it is either the Codex Azcatitlan or Azoyu (haven't checked which)
which counts 2 to 14 instead of 1 to 13 (notice no zero) in the Tzolkín 
dates. 
 If there is no zero, and the system is not positional even 
 in the Maya way of doing it, then you *can* see the
 highest possible digit of the count actually occurring.)
  
 Michael writes:
 <<Rounds of creation are of course referred
to in Mayan and Central Mexican texts.>>
 Yes, but that is a separate question and does not directly imply
 an answer to whether 2012 was an especially important date
 for the Maya.
  
 <<Symmetry, something valued in Mesoamerican time-keeping,
 suggests that the scribes might well have believed that big things
 would happen when 13 baktuns were completed again.  >>

 Here is that word "suggests" again.  Symmetry does not suggest
 that or make it more likely.  The idea is conceivable, little more.
  
 <<Was this a major focus of concern  for the scribes?
 Apparently not; If it was we could reasonably expect more
texts referencing it  to have turned up.>>
 That is a really major point, not determinative (nothing is by itself),
 but seems to say there is no support for the hypothesis.  
  
 <<But  the notion is plausible. No more, no less.>>
 I think not.  It is conceivable, but at present not even very plausible.
 Something to be kept in mind as a possibility, along with many others,
 but that is nowhere near as strong as "plausible". 
 Let's not pretend we have evidence we simply don't have.

Best wishes,
Lloyd

Lloyd Anderson
Ecological Linguistics
PO Box 15156
Washington DC 20003
ecoling at aol.com
202-547-7683



**************
Gas prices getting you down? Search AOL Autos for 
fuel-efficient used cars.
      (http://autos.aol.com/used?ncid=aolaut00050000000007)