[Aztlan] FAQ re 2012 & 20 Baktuns vs. 13

[John Major Jenkins]

Michael,
 
Due to the evidence of the 13.0.0.0.0 Creation date on the carving from
Quirigua, I believe it was Joseph T Goodman, ca. 1898, who emphasize the
importance the 13-baktun cycle over the merely abstract expectation that
the next level should be 20 baktuns. Many scholars would still like the
expansion by 20 assumption to be the case. I don't know why there is
such disagreement about this; as I wrote in my previous post, the
13-baktun Creation dates are quite common.  
 
The idea that you call "symmetry" between cycle endings, big and small,
is what I've been referring to as a belief among the Maya that
"like-in-kind" events happen at all cycle endings. The rites performed
at Katun endings attest to this. Not surprisingly, the belief involves
the observation that something essential to the previous period is
passing away, must be willingly surrendered/sacrificed, so that a new
era or being can come into existence. Some scholars take this as a more
than plausible fact of Maya ideology; Matthew Looper, for example,
wrote: "Zoomorph P and Altar P' [at Quirigua] were commissioned by Sky
Xul as the primary commemorative monuments for his third period ending
festival on 9.18.5.0.0 [September 13, 795 CE]. As a celebration of
cosmic renewal, the period-ending was considered to be a replay of the
events of cosmogenesis, which occurred on 4 Ajaw 8 Kumk'u [13.0.0.0.0 in
3114 BCE]." (Looper, "Quirigua Zoomorph P: A Water Throne and Mountain
of Creation" in Heart of Creation: The Mesoamerican World and the Legacy
of Linda Schele, ed. Andrea Stone, University of Alabama Press, 2002, p.
199.)
 
Regarding your statement "Was this [the end of the current 13-baktun
cycle] 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." 
 
As with the historical vicissitudes that effects practically every other
tradition, cult, belief system, why should we expect the Maya of 700 AD
to care about the esoteric origins and intention of the Long Count? As I
wrote in the essay I linked to in my previous email:
 
"The Classic Period 13.0.0.0.0 dates from Coba and Quirigua were carved
seven or eight centuries after the first Long Count dates appear (cycle
7 dates, 1st century BC). . . . we should suspect that the core insights
encoded into [the original] tradition could easily have been layered
over with reinterpretations, redactions, modifications, and localized
socio-political agendas. This is exactly what happened to Christianity,
when early gnostic and hermetic aspects were occluded and even rejected
at the Council of Nicea.  So, although the core galactic references
remain embedded in the Mayan ballgame and the Creation Myth, the import
of those references for the Classic Maya may have been severely muted.
The galactic alignment references [to 2012] may have been as relevant to
the Classic Maya as the visionary ascent of the Poimandres was to a
ninth-century Pope. In this sense, the recovery of early Christian
hermetic texts in the 1940s (the "Nag Hammadi" library) was as
revolutionary and upsetting for establishment Christianity as the
reintegration of the core teachings at Izapa might be to our picture of
Classic (and modern) Maya cosmovision."
 
As I suggested in my previous post, perhaps we should examine the
iconography and archaeoastronomy at Izapa; specifically, the Izapan
ballcourt. 
 
John Major Jenkins
http://Alignment2012.com <http://alignment2012.com/> 
 
 
   
 
  
 
-----Original Message-----
From: aztlan-bounces at lists.famsi.org
[mailto:aztlan-bounces at lists.famsi.org] On Behalf Of Michael Finley
Sent: Tuesday, June 24, 2008 1:04 AM
To: Aztlan
Subject: Re: [Aztlan] FAQ re 2012 & 20 Baktuns vs. 13
 
 
[First I sent this by accident direct to Lloyd Anderson instead of the 
list,  then messed up the format and lost a few words when I tried to 
resend it.  The 13 gods must be angry  with me.  So, with apologies,  
here it is again ....]
 
Lloyd, I usually find you to be a voice of calm reason .... but methinks

you may be letting 2012 agitate you a bit too much!  You could end up 
like B.D., a Doonsbury character in a cartoon about 2012 ( (I have it on

my website, in bottom 1/3 of the page ---  
http://members.shaw.ca/mjfinley/arguelles.html  ).
 
Yes, there is only one inscription that directly mentions 13 baktun 
since the last creation . What it says about this date, aka 2012, if 
anything,  is obscure at best.  There is nothing in post-Conquest Maya 
texts that can be said to clearly refer to 2012.  I  kind of like your  
idea  of posting frequent notices reminding the curious of these facts.
 
But . .. I think a reasonable plea for not dismissing all 2012 talk can 
be made, and summarized thus:
 
The notion that the completion of 13 baktun since the last creation  was

expected to mark the end the current round of creation didn't originate 
with  the crazies like Jose Arguelles who expect the sky to fall in 
2012. The suggestion that 2012 might have had some sort of world-shaking

significance for the Classical Maya may have first been made explicitly 
by Michael Coe, if not by Victoria Bricker.  The lack of textual 
confirmation makes it impossible to elevate the notion above the level 
of plausible speculation, but it is plausible, as plausible as a lot of 
ideas about Maya astronomy and sacred practices that are deemed (for 
better or worse) respectable.  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, suggesting  that an earlier "world" 
had subsisted for 13 baktuns. Rounds of creation are of course referred 
to in Mayan and Central Mexican texts.  At least as early as S.G. 
Morley, the significance of 13 baktun had been noted by Mayanists. (He 
was unsure whether to call 13 or 20 bakun a "Great Cycle.") 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.  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.   But  the notion is plausible.

No more, no less.
 
 
Michael Finley
_______________________________________________
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