[Aztlan] Forward from Jorge Perez de Lara

[michael ruggeri]

Listeros,

The moderators have stated that we would like any comments on 2012 to  
be real archaeology and archaeology that we have not covered  
extensively in the past. We are forwarding this post from Jorge Perez  
de Lara because it is based on real archaeology and is a valid  
counterpoint to the recent post from John Major Jenkins. We do not  
want to re-open the thread. We will post this and monitor future posts  
on the topic so as not to have another round of arguments we have  
heard in the past.

The moderators

Every time this subject comes up, I have a hard time not speaking out  
as I always promise myself I will do. I don't want my comments to  
sound as an ad hominem, because it isn't.

Having said that, I would like to examine the following list of 6  
statements, which basically opens one of the links that John Major  
Jenkins provides in his recent Aztlan:

• 2012 is a true artifact of the Maya calendar
• December 21, 2012 is the accurate cycle-ending date
• The doomsday assumption is not found in Maya tradition
• The evidence indicates that the Maya concept for cycle endings (such  
as 2012) is transformation & renewal
• Evidence specific to 2012, from the site of Tortuguero, is that 2012  
represents the birth of a new cosmos, or Age
• A profound worldview of the Maya is being recovered, integrating  
astronomy (science) and spiritual teachings. It's being done by  
independent investigators operating outside official Maya studies

Phrase 1 is true inasmuch as most Maya scholars accept the GMT 584283  
correlation as presenting the accurate equivalence between the Maya  
calendar and our own. For those that espouse other correlations (and  
there are), the "artifact of the Maya calendar" falls in other years.
Phrase 2 has been discussed here many times and the statement is, at  
the very least, open to question. There is no inscription from the  
Classic-period (the time during which the Long Count was being used)  
that manifests anything suggesting this date was conceived of as a  
cycle-ending date.
Phrase 3 is accurate.
Phrase 4 makes reference to the fact that the birth of our own era (a  
mythical event that took place in 3114 B.C. according to the  
aforementioned GMT 584283 correlation) is indeed treated by Maya  
inscriptions as a time of transformation and renewal. Inscriptional  
evidence that the Maya thought 2012 would be ushering in a new era or  
that it would mark a time of transformation and renewal is basically  
non-existent.
Phrase 5 presents as a fact what is completely absent in Tortuguero  
Monument 6, the monument where the supposed era-ending/beginning event  
is allegedly talked about. The relevant passage is damaged and remains  
little understood by epigraphers, who to this day continue to be the  
most qualified people for reading ancient Maya inscriptions.
Phrase 6 is inaccurate and misleading: the deeper understanding of the  
Maya worldview we now have is by and large the result of decades of  
work by accredited investigators of ancient Maya culture, from  
archaeologists, to epigraphers, to art historians. The label  
"independent investigator" is code-speak here for "non-Academics" and  
stating that the this work is "being done by independent  
investigators" basically seeks to misappropriate the merits of others.

It further troubles me that the list of statements I have commented on  
intends to be "an outline...[ ]... for journalists, reporters, press  
people, interviewers, media people, screenplay writers, documentary  
producers, novel writers, and researchers — anyone writing about  
2012". Inasmuch as it clearly does not represent a consensual view of  
Maya scholars, I find it not only high-handed, but dishonest.

We've been down this road too many times in Aztlan and I intend this  
to be my only posting on the subject.

Jorge