[Aztlan] Tortuguero Mon 6 fragments

[Ed Barnhart]

Hi Listeros,

A quick follow up from me on a correction I received - the original photos
of Fragments E and F were taken in the 1960's, not after 2000 as I had
posted.  I made an incorrect assumption based on the info in Sven's book,
but have since learned different.

Thanks, Ed

Dr. Edwin Barnhart
Director, Maya Exploration Center
7301 Ranch Road 620 N
Suite 155 #284
Austin, Texas 78726
(512) 350-3321

-----Original Message-----
From: aztlan-bounces at lists.famsi.org [mailto:aztlan-bounces at lists.famsi.org]
On Behalf Of Sven Gronemeyer
Sent: Thursday, July 23, 2009 1:37 PM
To: aztlan at lists.famsi.org
Subject: Re: [Aztlan] Tortuguero Mon 6 fragments

Dear Ed and all listeros,

I would also be keen to learn about the whereabouts of fragments E and F, as
I also only ever was able to study them via some old photos. Well, I'd even
be keener on knowing the whereabouts of the so-called Tortuguero ear plug,
but that's another story...

So regarding your concerns, I believe we can be pretty if not absolutely
sure that all the fragments fit together. If I got the history correct, it
was Peter Mathews who first recognised that Fragment G is part of Mon. 6 by
comparing it with the "Boston fragments". If this was ever done physically,
i.e. with all pieces together, is uncertain, but I doubt it. By that time
(around 1974) the pieces were already scattered through several collections.
Mathews' findings where then first, to my knowledge, published by Berthold
Riese in his 1978 study of Mon. 6 in the Estudios de Cultura Maya. Ian made
his drawing of the main panel back in around 1970, so likely before the
fragments E through G where known or at least attributed to Mon. 6 - hence
his original drawing of Mon. 6 (as e.g. seen in Victoria Bricker's 1986
Grammar) wasn't showing the right-hand panel and that's also likely why it
was first designated as Mon. 7.

So far, so good. But how to be sure that the pieces fit and belong together?
Admittedly, we don't know if they were found together. If so, things would
be much easier. We may de facto speak of unprovenanced pieces, but as they
are surely part of Mon. 6, we can securely attribute them to the site. As
reports or archaeology can't help us, we need to find other arguments. And
we can almost solely take epigraphy as our advocate.

1. Calendarical nexus: if we take the last date recorded on the main panel
and substract the distance number the inscription on the main panel ends
with, we surprisingly end up exactly with the first date recorded on the
fragments. That's more than a coincedence.
2. Grammar: the first glyph bock on the fragments perfectly fits into the
syntax: the main panel ends with the distance number as an adverbial phrase
and continues with the verb uhti as the predicate and a zero morpheme as the
subject. The new clause begins with the next date the distance number has
calculated to.
3. Paleography: the date on the fragments is introduced with a special form
of the verb uhti - "it happened". It uses a the "Chuwen Skull" sign, which
in Tortuguero is used elsewhere to indicate not only previous but very early
dates (in relationship to the date mentioned before in the text) We e.g find
the same case on the main panel of Mon. 6 itself (block I2). This and other
palaeographical indicators show a relationship not only to the site, but the
same monument.

If you recognise a gap between the fragments and the main panel or think
that they don't really fit together (judging from the drawing), there's also
a plain explanation for that. As fragments E and F are not available for
study purposes, I had to rely on third party information on the
measurements. To get these figures together with what I had for fragment G
and the main panel was a bit difficult. And even all the measurements I had
for a single fragment deviated several centimeters from each other,
depending on who has taken them - simply measurement errors. My collage of
Ian's drawing and mine of the right-hand wing was the best approximation
possible with all the values available and although vague, I relied more on
the measurements (within a very narrow tolerance) than on best fitting
together. If I had scaled the wing a bit greater (just some 5 cm), the
pieces would have fitted together much better with the glyph blocks lining
up, but then the wing got bigger than the reported measurements.

Don't get me wrong: fragments E to G surely belong together, the cracks,
glyphs and everything fit beyond doubt. There were only difficulties in
getting certain sources of information together, as it is so often the case
when not able to verify by yourself.

The lower border or frame that doesn't find a prolongation is also easy to
explain. Likely, Mon. 6 once was a T-shaped panel. The right-hand wing is
much smaller, its lower edge adjoins the main panel at about 1/4 of its
total height. The main panel is surrounded by a solid border frame as well.
Interestingly, this border is missing in the upper quarter on the left and
right side, so the glyphs of the main panel and wing are fitting together
seamless. It is almost like the right wing is "flanged" to the main panel,
so the border of both parts meet in a 90? angle then and finds its
continuation there.

Best regards,

Sven


_______________________________________________
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