[Aztlan] Tortuguero Mon 6 fragments

Fri Jul 24 11:47:15 CDT 2009

Michael Grofe's observations here are very relevant for understanding how the 13.0.0.0.0 (2012) date on Tortuguero Monument 6 was being utilized. Via DN relations it was connected to a 7th-century building dedication and to the ruler B'ahlam Ajaw. So, even though we are missing the left arm of the T-shaped monument, and even though the 2012 date is found only in the small right arm of the monument, we can see that the date was linked to ritual actions and historical kings. I'd like to see more of what Michael and others are finding, and believe that a full decipherment of Tortuguero Monument 6, with a sensitivity to astronomy, will help us understand how the 2012 date was being utilized and conceived at Tortuguero.  Other texts from Tortuguero might provide helpful contexts (there's an astronomically significant 9.14.0.0.0 date on Tortuguero Monument 2), and perhaps analogous texts & dates at other sites might further illuminate the relationships between kingly births & accessions, ritual dedications, Long Count cycle endings (big and small), Creation mythology, and astronomy.  These pursuits might contribute to our understanding of how 2012 was conceived by the ancient Maya. 

John

-----Original Message-----
>From: Michael Grofe <mgrofe at gmail.com>
>Sent: Jul 24, 2009 5:18 AM
>To: aztlan at lists.famsi.org
>Subject: Re: [Aztlan] Tortuguero Mon 6 fragments
>
>Good questions, Ed,
>
>Concerning the missing fragments of Tortuguero Monument 6, I'd also like to
>know where fragments E and F are, as well as fragment B and the entire
>missing left side with the Initial Series, which as far as I know has never
>been found.
>
>As for some nice images of fragment G, see the Mesoweb photo archives. There
>are several close-up images there taken by Joel Skidmore at the Carlos
>Pellicer Museum in Villahermosa (2001):
>
>http://www.mesoweb.com/photo/view.asp?act=viewdata&i &s=tortuguero&ext=n&sit=1&incnot=n&id &expert=y&sAND=&sANDNOT
>Regarding the important question of whether fragments E, F, and G are part
>of Tortuguero Monument 6, I think we can say that they are for several
>reasons. From reading Gronemeyer's thesis, downloadable at Wayeb (link
>below), we can see that TRT 6 was originally a T-shaped monument. The
>central text is mostly intact (though fragment B is also missing in the
>Villahermosa photos), while the left branch of the T (presumably with the
>Initial Series) is missing. The right branch consists of fragments E, F, and
>G. We can see the indentations where the left and right panels of the T fit
>together with the central text, though they don't seem to line up perfectly
>in Sven's drawing - though they might if all of the fragments are put
>together again.
>
>Furthermore, at the end of the central text, in blocks L16-L17, we see the
>distance number 8.0.7.7, and this counts back from the important building
>dedication date 9.11.16.8.18, 9 Etz’nab 6 K’ayab, in blocks I7-I8, to the
>first date we find in fragments E, F and G, 8 Chuwen 9 Mak, in blocks N1-M2.
>This would correspond to the LC 9.03.16.01.11. (The building dedication
>itself is anchored to the known accession date of B'ahlam Ajaw on
>9.10.11.3.10, mentioned in F6-E7).
>
>This same building dedication event on 9.11.16.8.18, 9 Etz’nab 6 K’ayab, is
>also used as the base from which the distance number in M5-P1 counts forward
>to 4 Ajaw 3 K'ank'in and 13 Bak'tuns in 2012. This DN is 3.8.3.9.2, found on
>fragments E, F, and G.
>
>So I think we can safely say that fragments E, F, and G are indeed part of
>Tortuguero Monument 6. Now, if we only could find the Initial Series and the
>missing text, we might have a better understanding of the rest of this
>interesting text.
>
>Here's a link to Wayeb to download Gronemeyer's thesis:
>
>http://www.wayeb.org/resourceslinks/wayeb_theses.php
>
>I'd also love to know if anyone tracks down the location of the missing
>fragments.
>
>Cheers,
>Michael
>
>
>
>>
>> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
>> From: "Ed Barnhart" <edbarnhart at mayaexploration.org>
>> To: "'michael ruggeri'" <michaelruggeri at mac.com>, <aztlan at lists.famsi.org>
>> Date: Thu, 23 Jul 2009 09:06:00 -0500
>> Subject: [Aztlan] Tortuguero Mon 6 fragments
>> Dear Listeros,
>>
>> While I was reading about Tortuguero Mon 6, the only text in the Maya world
>> said to have recorded the date Dec 21, 2012 AD, I learned an important
>> detail of its story.  According to Sven Gronemeyer's 2006 book "The Maya
>> Site of Tortuguero, Tabasco, Mexico - Its History and Inscriptions", the
>> monuments fragments are not all together.  Some are in Villahermosa, others
>> are in the United States.
>>
>> The text section that actually makes up the statement including 2012 is in
>> three fragments - E, F, and G.  Fragment G was brought to Villahermosa in
>> 1958 (along with fragments A and D), but E and F were first recognized in
>> the possession of Los Angeles art dealers sometime after the year 2000.
>> They were sold to a gallery in Boston and then sold to a private collector.
>> Their current location is unknown!
>>
>> I have concerns and questions.  First questions - does anyone on our list
>> actually know where fragments E and F are?  Who owns them now?  I have a
>> photo of fragments E and F that Mark Van Stone shared with me, but I can't
>> find a photo of fragment G, only drawings based on Ian Graham's original
>> drawings.  Does anyone have photos?
>>
>> Now my concerns - first, how sure are we about the idea that fragments E,
>> F,
>> and G actually fit with fragment A? If they were found in separate places,
>> has anyone actually fitted them together?  Considering E and F are in the
>> possession of private collectors and A is with INAH Tabasco, I doubt it.
>> Looking at the drawings, the glyphs don't seem to line up right, and
>> fragments E, F, and G have a border beneath them that does not continue
>> into
>> fragment A.  In point of fact, we cannot even verify where these fragments
>> came from.  Graham reported that local informants said the fragments were
>> found sealing a burial.  However, only some of them made it to Villahermosa
>> in the 1950's.  The others surfaced in theta USA, in private collections
>> decades later.  Essentially, they are unprovienenced artifacts.
>>
>> Let me clarify that I do believe fragment G is a real artifact, and there
>> is
>> enough text on it alone to believe it refers to the date Dec 21, 2012 AD.
>> However, I am questioning if it is actually part of Tortuguero Mon 6.  In
>> fact, Graham originally identified separately, as the only known fragment
>> of
>> "Mon 7."  I am also questioning the identity of fragments E and F, and
>> whether they really fit with fragment A.
>>
>> Given the hype about 2012, these little fragments have actually become
>> quite
>> important.  Can anyone speak to the concerns I've brought up?  John, I
>> imagine you have something to say :)
>>
>> Curious, Ed
>>
>> PS.  Sorry Aztlan moderators, I know you've had a belly full of 2012.  This
>> is really an archaeology question, I swear!
>>
>> Dr. Edwin Barnhart
>> Director, Maya Exploration Center
>> 7301 Ranch Road 620 N
>> Suite 155 #284
>> Austin, Texas 78726
>> (512) 350-3321
>>
>>
>>
>_______________________________________________
>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
>
>