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

[Nick Hopkins]

I would like to second Jorge and Lloyd on the need for caution in the interpretation of iconographic elements and glyphs; you need to look at a lot of examples in context before attempting a conclusion. 
And now that the subject has been raised, I would like to point out another kind of context that needs to be considered. Besides the markers for "body parts" or "human" (the circle-within-a-circle) and "stone" (Jorge's "grapes"), there are also markers for "wood" (the central element in the "te" sign), "earth" (the tadpole-like element in Caban), "water" (the "water-stacks" on the Tikal bones, and some other variants), "deity" (the "mirror" sign on arms and legs), and not yet so clear but quite probably "(some kinds of) animal" (the double loops at the back of the jaw of, say, jaguars), and "(some kinds of) plants" (foliage of various sorts). The marking of images with these signs is not obligatory, but it is quite common. 
Not surprisingly, these categories match overt grammatical categories in some Mayan languages (Chuj, Jacaltec, Acatec, Kanjobal), that is, there is every reason to believe these are the basic categories of the things of the world in native Mayan world view.  Trying to interpret any one of these signs without considering the fact that the individual sign is part of a larger system of functionally similar signs leads to misinterpretations (e.g., IMHO, that the "human" marker is a "severance" sign).   
     Nick Hopkins
 		 	   		  
_________________________________________________________________
Hotmail: Powerful Free email with security by Microsoft.
http://clk.atdmt.com/GBL/go/201469230/direct/01/