[Aztlan] Symbols Star / Star-eye / Holy?

[Gary Daniels]

>><<And in his head band is the  circle-within-a-circle motif repeated
>>multiple times.>>

>That also occurs for example in the cornices of  quite a large number of
>depictions of palaces or temples in the Mixtec  codices, for example
>palaces on Nuttall p.24, 26, 41,  and many  more.
>These can also appear in depictions of temples,

That's very interesting that these symbols appear in temples and palaces.
Temples are associated with the gods and the gods are associated with the
heavens....and stars.

Kings are earthly representatives of the gods...or even earthly descendants
of the gods. So a King's palace is the earthly home for a person supposedly
descended from the gods.

Thus it makes sense that both locations, temples and palaces, would have
star symbols.

Even more interesting is the CHUM glyph which is closely associated with
gods and kings. The "seating" or "enthronement" of a king or god is
represented by the CHUM glyph which, over time, has evolved from a literal
picture-of-king-sitting into a circle-within-a-circle (See figure 12 in link
below):

http://www.famsi.org/reports/99027/section02.htm

The CHUM glyph could have evolved in countless ways...but it just so happens
that it evolved into this circle-in-circle design which may have star
associations. Does this suggest that the enthronement of a king or god is
associated with a star? This would not be a unique concept on planet
Earth...nor even in Mesoamerica.

-Gary Daniels
http://www.LostWorlds.org






On 2/6/10 2:17 PM, "ECOLING at aol.com" <ECOLING at aol.com> wrote:

> Gary continues his diligent pursuit of examples.  Regarding the  Wikipedia
> one,
> 
> _http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tlaloc_ (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tlaloc)
> 
> he writes <<It appears the sculptor  purposefully rendered Tlaloc¹s face as
> a sort of
> ³EK² glyph. The nose and  eyebrows seem purposefully combined into one unit-
> which I haven¹t seen in  other sculptures. >>
> 
> That is indeed interesting.  Not yet to me  convincing by itself,
> though if we have multiple lines of evidence for  connecting Tlaloc with
> Venus,
> that would be very nice to know.  So Gary's  question at the end is
> worthwhile,
> even if in our present state of knowledge we might  have to say "don't
> know".
>> From a Mayan perspective, we would expect the  "eyebrows"
> to be curved down around the outside of the  "goggle" eyes,
> if it were indeed intended as an EK' glyph, obvious  to those in-the-know.
> Can professionals specializing in Central Mexico
> offer any generalizations on how glyphs or iconographic symbols appear
> which refer to  'star' or 'Venus', in the sense of which parts or fractions
> appear?
> 
> <<Tlaloc also appeas to have rays of light  emanating from behind his head,
> star-like. >>
> 
> Quite plausible as to the first part, but on a  world-wide scale
> more sun-like than star-like.  Do we know that  those emanations
> in this particular example or in highly similar  ones do represent light,
> for example?
> What do we know about other examples with similar  radial
> lines esp. out to the sides of a head?  Or  others which by changing
> perspective profile vs. frontal should be  equivalent?
> 
> <<And in his head band is the  circle-within-a-circle motif repeated
> multiple times.>>
> 
> That also occurs for example in the cornices of  quite a large number of
> depictions of palaces or temples in the Mixtec  codices, for example
> palaces on Nuttall p.24, 26, 41,  and many  more.
> These can also appear in depictions of temples,
> as that of 9 Wind on Nuttall p.15.  See also  p.18 upper left.
> The god 9 Wind is indeed associated with Venus,
> but the row of circles-within-circles occurs more widely than that,
> probably has a meaning more general even than 'star'.
> Not all 9-Wind temples have this design, as witness  Nuttall p.21 left.
> Temples or palaces associated with the (oracle of  the) Sun God
> also have this design, as p.78 upper left and  p.77
> 
> The most clearly star-associated are the  "star-eyes" common in the
> Selden Roll, where red color also occurs, and the circle-inside-circle
> is divided into two halves by a horizontal line  through it.
> In the Codex Nuttall, these seem to appear on  temples rather than
> palaces, for example p.25 left, p.22 upper right,  p.42 lower right, p.68,
> p.12 lower left,
> and in the center of known "Venus" symbols in  sky-bands
> from which figures descend, Nuttall pp.18, 19,  21.  See also the two
> combined p.50 upper; see also p.75 upper left, the  same image as
> on the cover of the Dover edition of the  Nuttall.
> (The "descent" just referred to, by the way is  probably used in a very
> abstract sense, somewhat like English "and the army  descended upon
> the city and the fields and destroyed them".   The context in at least
> some of those examples is that of warfare in the Mixteca.)
> The so-called "Venus staff" has five star-eyes,  usually on a red
> background so by coincidence half of the  circle-within-circle is
> red because overlapping the backgroun.  This  staff has a "quincunx"
> arrangement, as p.16  upper left, p.18 upper left, twice in the large
> landscape scene of  p.19, p.21 left, p.22 by temple,
> p.2 carried by 2 Rain as he abdicates (walks away from the place sign).
> Star-eyes can also appear in a skyband as part of a  proper name,
> as Nuttall p.27 (9 Flint  Jaguar-from-skyband).
> A Tlaloc temple (Nuttall p.33 center bottom; or  else a temple where the
> principal figure wears a Tlaloc mask) does not have  either
> the star-eyes or the circles-within-circles as  prominent markings
> of its building, even if there is one of the  latter in the roof.  Other
> symbols are more prominent on this  temple.
> At least one ballcourt has 8 such star-eyes  (Nuttall p.83 bottom; I have
> not systematically surveyed ballcourts for this  marking.)
> 
> So I would guess the simple circles-within-circles  motif can have a
> meaning 'holy, religious, astrological place'  etc.or just more
> generally be used to symbolize high status or  significance.
> 
> *
> 
> I can't be sure I am understanding the headdress on  that example
> Gary points to in the Wikipedia article.  The  frontal view
> looks a bit like an owl, but the appearance of a  continual band of
> circles/dots-within-circles makes that seem a bit  less likely,
> and I cannot see what the different central element  is between those
> circles.  Is a profile view available  anywhere?
> 
> <<I¹ve seen this same headband on a sculpture  of Quetzalcoatl,
> who definitely has an association with a  star/planet: Venus.>>
> 
> But since the motif has a wider distribution, it  cannot always
> refer specifically to Venus.
> 
> <<The article states Tlaloc was the Aztec  version of the Mayan god Chac.
> I¹ve
> read elsewhere that God GI is also  associated with Chac. Interestingly, God
> GI is ³enthroned in the sky² at the  beginning of the Mayan Flood Myth and
> Decapitation of the Cosmic Caiman. This  ³enthronement in the sky² seems
> very
> star-like and suggests Chac (and thus  Tlaloc) has an association with a
> particular star.>>
> 
> This is an example of so-called "Thompsonian" reasoning,
> a term which implies a critique of J. Eric S. Thompson for it.
> The logical problem is that if A is *the same as* B,
> and B *is the same as* C, then A *is the same as* C
> seems an obvious conclusion.
> But if A *is associated with* B and B *is associated with* C,
> one cannot draw any such conclusion for A and C.
> To be associated together, two symbols merely have to
> convey meanings which are *not incompatible*.
> That could be true of A and B, and of B and C,
> yet A and C could be incompatible.
> 
> That is why one cannot draw conclusions about what a symbol
> represents merely from one or two associations.  Rather,
> one has to figure out from strong patterns in the data what
> general domain of meaning (possibly a specific meaning) is
> represented by each symbol.  That meaning must be
> *not incompatible with* all of the contexts in which the
> symbol occurs.  And one must be careful to make distinctions
> where the original users did, and that is also difficult.
> 
> God G1 (Mayan) and "enthronement in the sky" may play the
> role here of B in the non-transitive logical relations
> discussed above.  Does the fact that two gods are both
> enthroned in the sky argue for their both having the same star
> as a primary characteristic?  Certainly not directly.
> 
> <<This ³enthronement in the sky² seems very star-like and suggests
> Chac (and thus Tlaloc) has an association with a particular  star.>>
> This makes the "Thompsonian" reasoning-by-assumed
> transitivity explicit.  The "and thus Tlaloc" does not logically
> follow.  Tlaloc and Chac could share a number of features,
> and yet only one of them be associated with "enthronement
> in the sky".  Such an attribution actually has to be argued
> with extensive data, it cannot be assumed simply by
> assuming transitivity of "associated with".
> 
> This is completely separate from any question whether Chac and Tlaloc
> actually do share a large number of their associations.
> Michael Coe and Karl Taube among others do make equations between
> Central Mexican and Mayan figures, and it is certainly
> useful to consider the degree of their overlap in associations,
> at earlier and later times in various cultural areas.
> (Coe recently gave a lecture arguing for links between Mayan God K
> and Central Mexican Tezcatlipoca, an idea which has been around
> for a long time.)
> 
> Best wishes,
> Lloyd
> 
> Lloyd  Anderson
> Ecological Linguistics
> PO Box 15156
> Washington, DC  20003
> ecoling at aol.com
> 202-547-7683
> _______________________________________________
> 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
> 
>