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

[John Major Jenkins]

Jorge,
 
Consider this. The art and science of iconographic interpretation
utilizes a larger spectrum of contextual confirming information than
epigraphic decipherment. This is especially true at a site like Izapa,
where the monuments and the groups are aligned to specific astronomical
horizons, over which occur specific astronomical events. In my opinion
it is simply not the case that hieroglyphic decipherment is any more
rigorous or subject to verification than iconography. We encounter here
a bias that iconography consists merely of pictures that can be read
willy-nilly according to the whims of the reader. The same could be said
for epigraphy. The issue is whether or not a rational and objective
assessment of context, and a database of comparative forms and elements,
are being utilized. 
 
As an example, I suggest you and anyone else interested in how the
orientation of a monument aids the iconographic interpretation of its
content take a look at the Izapa ballcourt. Particularly, the throne on
the west end of the ballcourt that faces down the lengthwise axis to the
dawning December solstice sun.
http://www.alignment2012.com/ballcourt-schematic-and-description.html It
seems very difficult to get any direct feedback on this work. 
 
So, considering that many of the carved monuments at Izapa reflect
episodes and themes from the much later Popol Vuh, is it possible to
consider the overall sequence of Izapa’s stone monuments a kind of text?
Would this be impossible? Would it be a question of terminology? Would
it be a question of conceptual categories?
 
A lot can be, and already has, been said about the implications of the
readable text on Tortuguero Monument 6. Those who claim it is virtually
meaningless are not reading the literature on it. 
 
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 Jorge Pérez de Lara
Elías
Sent: Tuesday, June 24, 2008 10:44 AM
To: Aztlan
Subject: [Aztlan] FAQ re 2012 & 20 Baktuns vs. 13
 
Regarding John Jenkins' recent posting, I would like to quote the  
following from the fourth paragraph:
 
 
On Jun 23, 2008, at 10:45 PM, John Major Jenkins wrote:
 
> The current popular opinion about the dearth of "texts" related to  
> 2012
> is  only true if you disallow documents & statements that are not
> hieroglyphic texts. Since the earliest Long Count dates appear in the
> 1st century BC - more or less before the advent of hieroglyphic  
> writing
> - it is absurd to expect to find this kind of textual documentation on
> what the creators of the Long Count thought about it. Instead, we have
> to learn to read the iconographic statements preserved at the site,
> Izapa, that Michael Coe has stated were involved in the adoption of  
> the
> Long Count system.
 
I believe  that, in order to prove that 2012 was as important  to the  
pre-Columbian Maya as the 13.0.0.0.0, 4 Ajaw 8 Kumk'u Creation date  
that they so abundantly recorded, it is inescapable that one SHOULD  
turn to hieroglyphic texts, as this was then their ONLY method of  
writing. And, unfortuantely for those who would argue in favor of the  
importance of 2012, there is a dearth of texts of those. As far as I  
know, Tortuguero Monument 6 is the only textual, explicit mention of  
13.0.0.0.0, 4 Ajaw 3 Kank'in and, since the text is incomplete, we can  
make very little of it. Still, I can't help but imagine that if the  
date marked the end of one Creation and the beginning of another (and  
assuming this was important to the Maya), it would show up more.
 
As for the earliest Long Count dates appearing in the 1st. Century  
B.C., let's not forget that those happen well outside the Maya area  
and that the script they are associated with does not represent a  
Mayan language. Maya script, on the other hand, most probably  
developed way before the 1st. Century B.C., as the latest research in  
San Bartolo shows, where examples of well developed Maya writing have  
been dated to, perhaps, the V Century B.C. Therefore, it seems that  
the Maya would have been very capable of writing about anything they  
pleased from very early on, 2012 included.
 
Without texts, there is little evidence of what was explicitly  
important to the pre-Columbian Maya. Learing "how to read the  
iconographic statements", as Mr. Jenkins suggests, is tricky and  
highly imperfect at best and leaves so much open to subjectivity as to  
hardly constitute hard evidence. Even connections of early iconography  
to the Popol Vuh, a well-known bona-fide text of pre-Columbian origins  
have probably been abused, as the Popol Vuh mythology certainly must  
have changed over many centuries and the version that reached us had  
been thoroughly manipulated by the Quiche' for political reasons. (By  
the way, discounting the quote Pakal makes of the 20th. baktun in the  
Temple of the Inscriptions on account that its use was political  
sounds is not very honest reasoning: I submit that ALL public  
hieroglyphic texts and ALL public iconography was political. Either  
one considers all texts and images or none, but one cannot take just  
that which appears to bolster one's case, while discarding that which  
appears to contradict it.
 
My 2 cents.
 
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