[Aztlan] CHUM did not evolve into circle-in-circle

[Jorge Pérez de Lara]

Listeros,

I would like to merely supplement Lloyd's excellent post warning Gary  
Daniels against drawing conclusions before considering the actual  
evidence. (By the way, Lloyd also gives a very useful summation of the  
possible origin and use of the so-called "body part marker".):

The way to propose the possible evolution of a sign involves  
marshalling as many examples of variants of the sign as one may be  
aware may have developed over time. To this end, much care must be  
taken in providing contexts that are at least similar in every case,  
as this will reinforce the idea idea that the different signs are  
indeed variations of an older version of the same sign. In other  
words, it does not suffice to merely show that two signs (or parts  
thereof) "look alike". One must prove that they fulfill the same  
function and therefore probably have the same meaning. There are  
grammatical and often phonetical constraints that one cannot ignore.

As for the possible use of Maya script signs being used on  
petroglyphs, there are indeed cases in which elements of the Maya  
script are used as iconography. An example that comes to my mind would  
be the "grape markings" (which are probably a graphical convention for  
stalactites) that appear in the glyph for tun (stone). These same  
markings, used on buildings, probably mark such buildings as mountains  
(which are made of stone and often contain caves). Indeed, the sign  
for mountain (wits) resembles an irregularly-shaped tun (stone) glyph  
with the same "grape markings". Nevertheless, the use of script  
elements as iconography are rather the exception than the rule and, to  
my knowledge, it never happens outside a strictly Maya cultural  
context (i.e., Maya script elements are never found in, say, Mixtec  
contexts). Therefore, wanting to see the "circle-in-circle" design  
found on non-Maya petroglpys as an evolution of any Maya sign does not  
follow anything that is known about the cross-use between script and  
iconography.

To finish, why focus on the CHUM glyph and not on any of the many  
signs that contain the "body-part marker", such as t'al, k'al,  
tz'utz', etc. or any of the myriad heads of people and animals that  
contain the element and which have very specific meanings and readings  
in the script?

Maya epigraphy and iconography are fascinating, rich disciplines and  
one can delve into them in many ways and approach them from very  
different angles, but the only way any productive work will come out  
of this is by first getting to know their mechanics and respecting them.

My two cents,

Jorge


On Feb 7, 2010, at 12:13 AM, ECOLING at aol.com wrote:

> Gary writes:
>
> <<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.
>>>
>
> Where does this come from?
> Only from insisting on a particular result,
> no matter what the data say?
>
> Body parts are marked with something like a circle inside an arc
> at one edge of a glyph, rarely (?) as circle-within-circle.
> I am not aware of professionals in epigraphy who equate that
> body-part marker with any symbol for star, even the circle-in-circle.
>
> If I were to *guess* (but it is only that, one can so easily
> be wrong when leaping without direct evidence),
> the marker of body part might originate in a generalization from
> a view of the end of a bone protruding from a detached limb.
>
> Most important to the logic though, and back to what we can
> observe in the data,
> CHUM is merely one body part.
> It is the body-part which relates to what I think Gary is
> treating as the same as circle-within-circle.
> It is not the CHUM meaning which has that association.
> CHUM has its own distinctive character, and the core of
> that is not anything like a circle-within-circle.   Rather it
> has to do with various views of sitting, viewed from front
> or side or even rear.   The glyphs representing that do evolve
> from a more representational to a more abstract form.
> The earlier forms look *less* like mere circle-in-circle.
>
> The meaning "sitting" and the meaning "star" do not have
> anything obviously in common.
>
> I think Gary keeps insisting they do because he wants a particular
> piece   of iconography on a rock to mean something specific
> which he has already decided on, forget any actual data
> which would be needed to support that.
> He indicated something along those lines far back in
> these discussions.
>
> The best way to get relevant insights would be for Gary
> to post a good photo or two of the rock in question somewhere
> where lots of people can look at it.   Not a *drawing*,
> which is so subject to distortion to fit the preconception
> of anyone drawing it, but photographs of the original.
>
> 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
>
>
>