From swood at uoregon.edu Thu Jan 10 21:35:34 2008 From: swood at uoregon.edu (Stephanie Wood) Date: Thu, 10 Jan 2008 13:35:34 -0800 Subject: announcement: NEH Summer Institute Message-ID: Please share this announcement (and please forgive any duplication): "From the Yucatan to 'the Halls of Montezuma' -- Mesoamerican Cultures and their Histories" NEH Summer Institute for Middle and High School Teachers to be held at the University of Oregon July 14 - August 8, 2008 Directors: Stephanie Wood and Judith Musick For further information: http://whp.uoregon.edu/MesoInstitute/ or email: swood at uoregon.edu Deadline for applications: March 3, 2008 This is a four-week summer institute for middle and high school faculty of history, art history, literature and Spanish selected from applicants around the United States. It is designed to facilitate the expanded integration of Mesoamerican cultural heritage materials – new discoveries and the latest research interpreting the same -- into curricular units or lesson plans that will appeal to a variety of learners and bring greater multicultural depth and understanding into the classroom. The institute, sponsored in part by the University of Oregon's Wired Humanities Project (WHP), will also have an emphasis on multimedia. WHP hosts a number of electronic resources for students and scholars of Mesoamerica, including the Virtual Mesoamerican Archive, the online Nahuatl Vocabulary, and, coming soon, the Mapas Project, which is a digital collection of pictorial Mesoamerican manuscripts. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- _______________________________________________ Nahuatl mailing list Nahuatl at lists.famsi.org http://www.famsi.org/mailman/listinfo/nahuatl From sylvia at famsi.org Mon Jan 14 18:44:22 2008 From: sylvia at famsi.org (sylvia at famsi.org) Date: Mon, 14 Jan 2008 13:44:22 -0500 Subject: Proyecto Digitalizacion de Textos en Lenguas Mesoamericanas Message-ID: Mesoamericanistas, FAMSI se complace en anunciar: Proyecto Digitalizacion de Textos en Lenguas Mesoamericanas El Proyecto de Digitalizacion de Textos en Lenguas Mesoamericanas surgio del deseo de poner a disposicion de los eruditos, los estudiantes, y los interesados de todo el mundo, una seleccion de importantes documentos pertenecientes a la etnohistoria y a la linguistica de las poblaciones indigenas de Mexico y del norte de Centroamerica. Para el catalogo de manuscritos actualmente disponibles en linea hacer click aqui: http://www.famsi.org/spanish/research/mltdp/catalog.htm Haga clic aqui para ver mas informacion sobre el Proyecto Digitalizacion de Textos en Lenguas Mesoamericanas: http://www.famsi.org/spanish/research/mltdp/index.html Saludos, Sylvia Perrine, Archivista Fundacion para el Avance de Estudios Mesoamericanos, Inc. http://www.famsi.org/spanish/ _______________________________________________ Nahuatl mailing list Nahuatl at lists.famsi.org http://www.famsi.org/mailman/listinfo/nahuatl From ahchich1 at yahoo.com Sat Jan 19 17:16:01 2008 From: ahchich1 at yahoo.com (Carl callaway) Date: Sat, 19 Jan 2008 09:16:01 -0800 Subject: Aztec World Ages and the Calendar Stone Message-ID: Dear Friends, I have a question concerning the possible span of a world age as numerically recorded on the Aztec Calendar Stone. Gorden Brotherston in his Book of the Forth World (see his fig. 54 and pages 298-299) believes that the Aztec scribes encoded mathematically the time spans of world ages into the stone via the "mixcoa" or cloud serpents that frame the outer rim of the great stone. I am not an Aztec scholar so I can not refute or verify his interpretation. I hope those of you who are familiar with Aztec signs and iconography can tell me if his reading is at least plausible. Here is what he writes on page 299 of the work: "Just as the Era Four Ollin visually frames the proceeding four world ages at the center of the sunstone, so its length is recorded on the rim as we saw, in ten lots of ten Rounds imaged as cloud-snakes that issue from the squared scales of sky dragons to right and left. Now as we noted above, the heads peering from the dragons' maws below belong respectively to Fire Lord (left) and the Sun (right), who are One and Four in the set of thirteen Heroes. Hence, each endows its dragon and the Rounds on its back with number value, a capacity they and others among them display, for example, in the Pinturas transcription of the world-age story. As One, Fire Lord simply confirms the 5,200-year total; as Four, Sun multiples it to 20,800 to the remaining four-fifths of the Great Year [26,000 years]. Hence: 1x10x10x52=5,200 4x10x10x52=20,800 26,000 In the Cuauhtitlan Annals transcription of the Sunstone cosmogony, the four-fifths of the Great Year is noted as "CCCCC mixcoa," that is, four hundred cloud-snake rounds." My questions are these: Do the Fire Lord and the Sun God have numerical equivalents of 1 and 4? Are the 10 glyphs bordered by ten dots on the backs of the Serpents glyphs/names for the 52 year period? Where else in Aztec lit. is it mentioned that the so called cloud serpents manifest or are seen as representing a world Era? Finally is Gorden Brotherston still amongst the living so I might ask him directly? IF GB is correct, then I believe there are are interesting parallels that can be made to the art, numerology and iconography of other MesoAmerican cultures. I look forward to your answers. Carl Callaway --------------------------------- Be a better friend, newshound, and know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it now. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- _______________________________________________ Nahuatl mailing list Nahuatl at lists.famsi.org http://www.famsi.org/mailman/listinfo/nahuatl From oudyk at hotmail.com Sun Jan 20 21:12:58 2008 From: oudyk at hotmail.com (Michel Oudijk) Date: Sun, 20 Jan 2008 21:12:58 +0000 Subject: Aztec World Ages and the Calendar Stone In-Reply-To: <255886.81508.qm@web56111.mail.re3.yahoo.com> Message-ID: This is pure numerology and has nothing to do whatsoever with Mesoamerican culture, history or cosmovision. At least, I don't know of any indigenous sources, present or past, that justify this game of numbers and concepts. This search for encrypted codes, hidden messages, or mystic signs is a 'cosmic dragon' created by pseudo scholars and laymen without any kind of theoretical or methodological framework. Michel R. OudijkSeminario de Lenguas IndígenasInstituto de Investigaciones FilológicasUniversidad Nacional Autónoma de México Date: Sat, 19 Jan 2008 09:16:01 -0800From: ahchich1 at yahoo.comTo: Nahuatl at lists.famsi.orgSubject: [Nahuat-l] Aztec World Ages and the Calendar StoneDear Friends,I have a question concerning the possible span of a world age as numerically recorded on the Aztec Calendar Stone. Gorden Brotherston in his Book of the Forth World (see his fig. 54 and pages 298-299) believes that the Aztec scribes encoded mathematically the time spans of world ages into the stone via the "mixcoa" or cloud serpents that frame the outer rim of the great stone. I am not an Aztec scholar so I can not refute or verify his interpretation. I hope those of you who are familiar with Aztec signs and iconography can tell me if his reading is at least plausible. Here is what he writes on page 299 of the work:"Just as the Era Four Ollin visually frames the proceeding four world ages at the center of the sunstone, so its length is recorded on the rim as we saw, in ten lots of ten Rounds imaged as cloud-snakes that issue from the squared scales of sky dragons to right and left. Now as we noted above, the heads peering from the dragons' maws below belong respectively to Fire Lord (left) and the Sun (right), who are One and Four in the set of thirteen Heroes. Hence, each endows its dragon and the Rounds on its back with number value, a capacity they and others among them display, for example, in the Pinturas transcription of the world-age story. As One, Fire Lord simply confirms the 5,200-year total; as Four, Sun multiples it to 20,800 to the remaining four-fifths of the Great Year [26,000 years]. Hence:1x10x10x52=5,2004x10x10x52=20,800 26,000In the Cuauhtitlan Annals transcription of the Sunstone cosmogony, the four-fifths of the Great Year is noted as "CCCCC mixcoa," that is, four hundred cloud-snake rounds."My questions are these:Do the Fire Lord and the Sun God have numerical equivalents of 1 and 4?Are the 10 glyphs bordered by ten dots on the backs of the Serpents glyphs/names for the 52 year period?Where else in Aztec lit. is it mentioned that the so called cloud serpents manifest or are seen as representing a world Era?Finally is Gorden Brotherston still amongst the living so I might ask him directly?IF GB is correct, then I believe there are are interesting parallels that can be made to the art, numerology and iconography of other MesoAmerican cultures.I look forward to your answers.Carl Callaway Be a better friend, newshound, and know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it now. Express yourself instantly with MSN Messenger! MSN Messenger _________________________________________________________________ Express yourself instantly with MSN Messenger! Download today it's FREE! http://messenger.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200471ave/direct/01/ -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- _______________________________________________ Nahuatl mailing list Nahuatl at lists.famsi.org http://www.famsi.org/mailman/listinfo/nahuatl From ECOLING at aol.com Sun Jan 20 22:39:24 2008 From: ECOLING at aol.com (Lloyd Anderson) Date: Sun, 20 Jan 2008 17:39:24 EST Subject: Calendar of Pre-Columbian Events Message-ID: I am happy to say that the on-line calendar of Pre-Columbian Events is now being actively maintained again, and I plan for it to remain so for many years. All months of 2008 are now present, and several future years will shortly be added since many organizations (SAA, AAA, etc.) have future meetings scheduled years in advance. Go directly to this URL http://www.traditionalhighcultures.com/Calendar.htm Or go here http://www.TraditionalHighCultures.com and click on "Calendar" in the upper left corner. If you have meetings of a significant general interest to announce, please send a note to me using the "Email changes here" button at the top of the Calendar page, including date(s), name of event, a web page URL if you have it or an email to which people can make inquiries Lloyd Anderson Ecological Linguistics PO Box 15156 Washington DC 20003 ecoling at aol.com 202-547-7683 ************** Start the year off right. Easy ways to stay in shape. http://body.aol.com/fitness/winter-exercise?NCID=aolcmp00300000002489 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- _______________________________________________ Nahuatl mailing list Nahuatl at lists.famsi.org http://www.famsi.org/mailman/listinfo/nahuatl From brokaw at buffalo.edu Mon Jan 21 22:33:18 2008 From: brokaw at buffalo.edu (Galen Brokaw) Date: Mon, 21 Jan 2008 17:33:18 -0500 Subject: Aztec World Ages and the Calendar Stone In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Dear Michel and Listeros, I don't have an answer to Carl's question, but I would contest Michel's assertion that Brotherston's analysis is "pure numerology" that has "nothing to do with Mesoamerican culture, history or cosmovision." In the interest of full disclosure, I should say that I studied under Brotherston in graduate school, and I admire his work. However, I think that I am fairly intellectually independent. With that disclaimer, I would argue that to dismiss Brotherston's analysis in the way that Michel does is problematic for several reasons. There is certainly a lot of pseudo-scholarship on Mesoamerican cultures, and, Michel, I share your frustration with it; but I don't see how anybody could say that Brotherston's work falls into that category. It is very misleading to say that his work, or even this particular analysis, is a search for "cryptic codes, hidden messages, or mystic signs." The implication is that indigenous texts are transparent and that numerological readings of them are on a par with Western numerological beliefs that have survived among small groups in modern European and Euro-american societies. First of all, there are many aspects of Mesoamerican iconography that we don't understand. And there is a fundamental difference in the cultural importance of the modern minority beliefs in new-age numerology and the dominant numerology of ancient cultures in both Mesoamerica and Europe and the Middle East. In Hebrew numerology, for example, it was believed that there was an inherent relationship between numbers and the letters of the Hebrew alphabet; and this was part of a dominant cultural perspective. It is important to note that in the Hebrew tradition, this numerology informed the production of texts in various different ways. This does not necessarily mean, as some people believe, that the Bible contains some sort of hidden code that predicts the future if we could only figure out how to decode it. But I think it is generally accepted that Hebrew literacy had a numerical dimension that manifested itself in significant ways. It is believed, for example, that there are 22 books in the Jewish canon because there are 22 letters in the Hebrew alphabet. This doesn't mean that identifying this numerical dimension of the text holds the key to some sort of mystical knowledge or even a hidden message, but it certainly gives us a more thorough understanding of Hebrew textuality; and in some cases, it may appropriately contribute to the way in which we understand certain texts. "Numerology" does not have to have the pejorative sense that it often has in modern Western culture. In any case, whether you call it numerology or not, the fact is that in Mesoamerican cultures indigenous numeracy is very complex (in many ways, even more so than in Western cultures), and it plays an important role in the integrated realm of politics, economics, religion, history, etc., and hence in the technologies of communication in which knowledge was inscribed. It is well known that many indigenous pictographic texts explicitly record quantities and sequences related to astronomical observations and calendrics, and that other non-quantitative imagery often has a numerical dimension. To be sure, the extent to which iconographic imagery is infused with indigenous numerical significance gets a bit tricky. It is often much less explicit, and hence more controversial. I think this is part of Brotherston's argument that Carl is trying to corroborate: for example, the numerical correlation of the Fire Lord and Sun God to the numbers one and four respectively. In general, though, trying to understand the significance of indigenous numeracy through the way it informs and is reflected in indigenous texts is not merely a "game of numbers and concepts." To dismiss Brotherston's analysis because you are not familiar with any sources that might justify his interpretation begs several questions. Of course, it is always important to be judicious in areas where there is a dearth of evidence. If Brotherston did not base his argument on an analysis of indigenous sources, then a non-substantive "lack of evidence" argument might seem compelling. But in fact there is abundant evidence for reading the numerological dimension of these texts. The argument Brotherston presents is based explicitly on a correlated reading of numerous indigenous texts. In the pages to which Carl refers, he is reading the Sun Stone, of course, but also the Mexicanus Codex, the Tepexic Annals, the Rios Codex, the Paris screenfold, the Cuauhtitlan Annals, the Vaticanus screenfold, and the Borgia. Based on the casual way in which you dismiss Brotherston's analysis, I'm assuming here (perhaps incorrectly) that you are familiar with both Brotherston's book and the texts that he cites. If so, the implication of your general dismissal of his argument is that although you acknowledge that these sources exist, you don't feel that they justify Brotherston's reading/interpretation. But you don't say anything substantive to back up this refutation. It certainly may be possible to refute Brotherston's argument, but in order to do so, you would have to actually formulate your own interpretive argument based on your own counter-reading of the texts that he cites and possibly others that he doesn't. In other words, you would have to engage his argument and his indigenous sources. Maybe you have already formulated such an argument. If so, that would be an interesting and legitimate contribution to a scholarly discussion. But you can't just refute him based on your own merely asserted authoritative knowledge of the corpus of Mesoamerican sources, particularly when Brotherston's argument is explicitly based on an analysis of numerous primary texts. Regardless of whether or not Brotherston's analysis is accurate, he has clearly done his homework, and it is unfair and irresponsible to dismiss his work if you haven't done yours. Michel, I hope you don't take this personally. Even if Gordon weren't a mentor and friend, I would caution everyone against refuting other people's work in such a casual, non-substantive way. Even in the case of the type of pseudo-scholarship that you mentioned, I think that it is normally better to just ignore it. I must confess that I have been guilty of doing the same thing for which I'm criticizing you with what I felt was pseudo-scholarship. So this criticism is something that I have self-reflexively applied to myself as well, for whatever that is worth. I recognize that there are times when pseudo-scholarship gains a lot of ground in the popular imagination and may even start encroaching on more serious academic work. In those cases, it may be necessary to identify it as such. But to the extent that it actually achieves some sort of encroachment or legitimacy, it also deserves substantive refutation at least once. Again, however, I have a hard time seeing how anyone could classify Brotherston's work as pseudo-scholarship. One of the premises of his work is that we should take indigenous texts seriously, and that is what he does in _Book of the Fourth World_; and he does it in a serious and scholarly way. In a book as broad-ranging as _Book of the Fourth World_, it would probably be hard to get everything right, and Brotherston would probably be the first to recognize that. And I'm sure that some of his arguments are controversial. But I don't think that there is any way that you can call him a pseudo-scholar or layman. I have a lot more that I could say about the theoretical and methodological framework, but I'll stop here. Galen Brokaw Michel Oudijk wrote: > This is pure numerology and has nothing to do whatsoever with > Mesoamerican culture, history or cosmovision. At least, I don't know > of any indigenous sources, present or past, that justify this game > of numbers and concepts. This search for encrypted codes, hidden > messages, or mystic signs is a 'cosmic dragon' created by pseudo > scholars and laymen without any kind of theoretical or > methodological framework. > > Michel R. Oudijk > Seminario de Lenguas Indígenas > Instituto de Investigaciones Filológicas > Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > Date: Sat, 19 Jan 2008 09:16:01 -0800 > From: ahchich1 at yahoo.com > To: Nahuatl at lists.famsi.org > Subject: [Nahuat-l] Aztec World Ages and the Calendar Stone > > Dear Friends, > > I have a question concerning the possible span of a world age as > numerically recorded on the Aztec Calendar Stone. Gorden Brotherston in his > Book of the Forth World (see his fig. 54 and pages 298-299) believes > that the Aztec scribes encoded mathematically the time spans of world ages > into the stone via the "mixcoa" or cloud serpents that frame the > outer rim of the great stone. I am not an Aztec scholar so I can > not refute or verify his interpretation. I hope those of you who are > familiar with Aztec signs and iconography can tell me if his reading > is at least plausible. > > Here is what he writes on page 299 of the work: > > "Just as the Era Four Ollin visually frames the proceeding four world > ages at the center of the sunstone, so its length is recorded on the rim > as we saw, in ten lots of ten Rounds imaged as cloud-snakes that issue > from the squared scales of sky dragons to > right and left. Now as we > noted above, the heads peering from the dragons' maws below belong > respectively to Fire Lord (left) and the Sun (right), who are One and Four in > the set of thirteen Heroes. Hence, each endows its dragon and the > Rounds on its back with number value, a capacity they and others among them > display, for example, in the Pinturas transcription of the world-age > story. As One, Fire Lord simply confirms the 5,200-year total; as Four, > Sun multiples it to 20,800 to the remaining four-fifths of the Great > Year [26,000 years]. Hence: > > 1x10x10x52R00 > 4x10x10x52 ,800 > > 26,000 > > > In the Cuauhtitlan Annals transcription of the Sunstone cosmogony, the > four-fifths of the Great Year is noted as "CCCC mixcoa," that is, four > hundred cloud-snake rounds." > > > My questions are these: > > Do the Fire Lord and the Sun God have numerical equivalents of 1 and 4? > > Are the 10 > glyphs bordered by ten dots on the backs of the Serpents > glyphs/names for the 52 year period? > > Where else in Aztec lit. is it mentioned that the so called cloud > serpents manifest or are seen as representing a world Era? > > Finally is Gorden Brotherston still amongst the living so I might ask > him directly? > > IF GB is correct, then I believe there are are interesting parallels > that can be made to the art, numerology and iconography of other > MesoAmerican cultures. > > I look forward to your answers. > > Carl Callaway > > > > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > Be a better friend, newshound, and know-it-all with Yahoo! > Mobile. Try it now. > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > Express yourself instantly with MSN Messenger! MSN Messenger > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > Express yourself instantly with MSN Messenger! MSN Messenger > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > _______________________________________________ > Nahuatl mailing list > Nahuatl at lists.famsi.org > http://www.famsi.org/mailman/listinfo/nahuatl _______________________________________________ Nahuatl mailing list Nahuatl at lists.famsi.org http://www.famsi.org/mailman/listinfo/nahuatl From bortiz at earthlink.net Mon Jan 21 23:27:01 2008 From: bortiz at earthlink.net (bernard Ortiz de Montellano) Date: Mon, 21 Jan 2008 18:27:01 -0500 Subject: Aztec World Ages and the Calendar Stone Message-ID: J���櫱�("Z(��i��m��h��rj�k��^��h��j)�y�h�K(|DZ�����wm��b��'���yٚ�'%j)�����ަ�ޞ鞮�h�&���ejɢ�֤zȧ5�nj�^�)���2���rV��ƛ��br�肶��&�t �y�.�۫{�����'^i��םr��z{.���z����q��r%j��&�-�w���+z؜jZh�{��^��m��+v)گ'%j)�j��i׭���ק��k��ⲉ��%j)�����'���+br���Yc��j��^j�"��0��^i�.�˜��Z�k� ��{�� '��rV�����-��춉���'��^�DZ�Ƨ��m���ך��� �~'��r����^Š�u��+-�����jםJ�Ҷ�ޡ�ޞ�!�+ej��޶�jg����jvޭ�~�&���g�j[���u�b��^rZ.v�ڑ���,\������)���b�O�+-�g���n���w�^���zѢ�ݱ朆�߉�r� 2y���8^�������^J�Ҷ�ނ+޲�-��+hZ.��e��ȝz{Z�\��)܉׬�+a������ꮊz1����pB�{axǬ����'�)�z�ڶ*'jWZ��.���N���-rV��+,��}��j����楗&ޖ'�z�Z��^;^r�(����m��r���*'��+��-��h��Z�)��ۭk*��q�^�֫‹�vf�ray*k�x�解(��k'���&{���'��ȧ��j������z+&j��w�*'i�.�֭z�^��aj}t�'��ȧ��j����� ��^�������kiץJ�� �^�֫��3���DZ�����v��/�׬jj+z����h���jך�٨��+���{ aj�azǫ���wm���׫��az�h��zz-rZ.u��~*ޱ��z{l�*'�)�x0��Zw����'�g��Z �����^��"r{�m���z��r�o)��ة�(���^�Lu��-�����w*�w�z�^���(��'zǫ���jwg��az�-jX�n�a���z{l���iƥzwZ��.���l�j��������jW�u�Ҷ�ޅ�'���z��q�h��jW�u�������)�[޲k��*e�)��{b��-��k+jY^w��j��j�����y������n+�~X�����Z��b��'��-���)�z{^u����az�-��uح��ږ\�����1��s'%z���M2y�즺y�^u��������j���u���x����Ҷ���텩�籥�-y�4��hi�(�jj׭���jX�ʇڲ�Z�'���ȵ؝��b��%��ayƥzwZ��.���l�j������˧����u����3��,����ǥɷ�j���v'g��'�h��!jwez�^���z�ɫb���+l�8^��j[(�������Z�+)���zf���"�k��^��h������ l��mi�^v+���Ƈ������ȧ�笶*'���׬����z�"�^��-��y�^v)���w*��z�^��-��ފƧzW�z{a�����"�{v�lj�ay�����[jȬ��-�+,��{br��ק�'��\z�_��az{�m��}�-����ם{��ajح‹�v{��'���w%�Ȩ��Z�����'��k�)උ.��+��^�v�t��7^2��zYZ�����ή("��Lz��������&�f�zpk�F���葬�n��jZ�y���'���Z�m��M<���<�ӣ��s�چ歗�b���}����+��n7���^��Z���_��לZ��t��ݶ�jW�u�Ҷ�����j�"r�jwK��^�����h��aj��������&���*��-���n�H‹�u�'��-2'!z_���,z�b�{aj�k��^��h����r�+"��n����薈2��Z�����������Ǭ����'�˥��������(�j/�Ȩ��ȟ�az)�z����ߺY]��%�˫{�,���vƲ��"�nv'��w^��k��^��h�)୧nj׬r(���t���*ކ+0�������"�b�O텫Hjgڊ�r�{^�W��楗(�u�^�ק����aj�b��Z�g�����]j�.z�Z���ɢ��k��^��h����r�+"��^������2'!zWhzȬ���隶'����ږ�������Ӆ�ފ��֢�\���h~������h���*h�Ǭ����'�˥��޳�ڝ�̉�^��,���ʋ�~���������b��h��ly�h���ɺ��.����Z�����'��(�Gږ["��-��\jנ���"�����h��杊x-�Ʋ���+0������z{a��Z�؜�V���ڗ+"���jǚ��_��ܯ*m��(u���']zy��Ơz��l��'��('��Ӆ覦X�jب�+-��b�ؠzz.�ױ�ƫz�ڞ�Z���jw����鞮�h�'���v)ಇ�隭�'j���+aY�-z���鞮�h�'���������޲����jj'�ɚ�X+��l�y�u���K�������������'����bz�Ŋ �-�����az���隟/ڲ����1�(jg��Ƨ��'� ڦ���py�'�ۧu�쵩�� ݶ�{��i��u���֥v'�z��q觶��[n��b��+���z���u���h����ɷ����y����z{�z�%� ���ay�&�v��{�z�%� ���r'��˥��޲)ۢ�Lz����q��tK������axȝvW�j��"�y���{�z�%� �~��ũ�����m�bz������{�j��z{kzV����*[z�zy���ݶ�z�^����y�������z�ڝ�a��������v�����r�m�������-���"ج�)���Z��h��^���{axw���-��b�*'��b�{�z�%� ���+�������nrب���{l�{ڮ*.�؟}�ޞ���ӆ+��'���yǬ���)�jڲ�&z���W�zX���텫m��bnW��{Z�{,�g�����buקr�^�������l���۫z'�y�.��'�'��ޢ����-�ל�ע��n��a�y"�+ zw�jYri��ם����{�׫i̡i֧�g��ƥv)��Ȩ��Z�f������b�ǥ~)� �~'���k+�"جm�bz����+{��W�����y���f�K"��^%�"��jz'm��ǭ���j���W����{axw�����Zm��N�v������槶��ק�'�x-�+'�g��ƥv)��Ȩ����^��h��-����h���������؜jY'� ^v���ޝ�buק��,j�n�b���֢�\�����Ʀ������n�׫�֧v)���n����m��b�/�jwb��&yƬz��f�j�k���jץ��'����׭��^����br�z��z�-jw\z�Z�{^����ۦz�%� �v����aj����z�^���������z{�������jȧ��^�u��׫�˥�����ڟ/�j���������X��鞮�h�*+�����i�b��Z�)�1�(jg��Ƨr�m����wb�������s(����r������y��,���z����޲�ajx�Y�-z�ܺ[n�����݊�ek+�)���Z������^�{^���y��jY�~�%�؜����z&�����b�*'�������\��ڝ�^�Ǣ��^��!��h�'���(�k��ƭ���br'� ^v�j���+�����b���I��{ajٚ�(�v(����'-� ڦ���m����X���r��(�ڮj{b�'�jwlz���Ǭ��Z��m��-���'�����jب�Ƨuƥzwk���jwm��h������槶+Z�+ފf�z����^��j{�z��jWb��슉�N�޲����^{^��h������z ��a�Ȧj��+"���y�"��v(����鞮'�Ƞ�'�q��{��ƛ��k��2��b���zy�r^�DZ�X���ڝ�^�Ǧ���r�ޮȚ��-�)����Z���-��춉����g���Z�&�������� hr�롺+j��~��ũ��������q�\��ޕ�b�z��*�.��jwR�q�v�-������jw_���z�^rدz\�"�zw�j_톋���k�)උ�u�쵩ݶ�� �~'�Ǩ~)݊�����鞭�2��m���+b��+�Ƨv++y�^rם�x�v(�����m�����fz��ɯ�jg�~{�m��jw\�w�����ӡج�+,�-��춉���ڗ+"���j�ʋ�������X��������.�Ǭ���(!�;��'�+"�׫���jب����ǯz���笶*'����.����جj\�Ȧ���j{m����؜����v�y�0��޶�z+�ך��h}��u��{��-��춉݉�赶�z�j�.���v���ڗ+"���ؠzz.��.�Ǭ��^����.n�Z�د{�ZrJ���u��{���鞞٢�ly霢j^�X���n�)�i�m��ފƛ�wZ��޾'^�ǟ���iا��^�鞮�h�'�ئz{"�z��zױ��Ӆ�ڮ �z{A��az�-�zkzǧ�Ȭm�u�i�'"�\���(���jם���v)�����ȧv(�����m��'��j���!��Bj�ky�����z++y�b� ay+�J�'{�r����ۺ֥��axDZ�Ƨ���u����^M�^� .��Z��h��-��e��+��Z�쨺�0�)�z�kzدy��g����y�'ʋ�� �r������杊x(~�^��m��Z���׬jwi��"n\�����Z��v�����"z-���l�*.‹�v�z���z�j�.���jwa���ؠzz.��.�Ǭ�Ʋm쨺�y�ky�r~��V�y�.r�j�.�������텫p��]m槊{^��-�x��^�+b��^r��&�*'�����h����جr�,����r����c��ky��z�m�v������z��ɫ,z�^u����⵫b��'� ^v�~�^r���1�(jg��Ƨ��.�Ǭ����'.����^�����'�ƫ�鞞ج{e�ȭ�&ڱ�h���jv��Ȭ������k�f��ױ���z�vW�����az�+����-��춉���ڗ+"�+q˫j����Z��^j�rv�ކ+!�g������݊ج�wڊ��v*�z�h�ț��hv+&��!��(�H�ʋ�j����ݢw������̉�^��!�����h��mjG��+)z�(��e��/zx��ݢ|������z{h���~�����‹�uƮ�*'z��ʉ�j���ky���x(������W�� +�)��Zq�.j_�칻-j{b����/zx���jǨ�azܩz��띣���Z��b��Z�*.��튉�w�-�)���ج�z+��eɷ����;��('�����&��\�w޲�aj�!j��y���襷*v����^�������+�����r���ȳ�x2��"�!j��}�m��)�띣���Z��b���r���Ȭ�+,�g��)��"�{����y�^�+ޗ&��X�v�&�ǥ}�0zY�~��^��텫b� +��"��� ���aj�az����b��0���띣���Z��b���ƥ��� �wb��^��n��♨"��b�v�vf�z���֫��ܮ���)�y����z���Ɯiצ��(�OȞ�h������ٚɷ�yǬ��򶈝z{b/⵫,����m��^{^��ajحi�njYri�bz���������ޝ��i�fz{h�W��ئi���֥��^���z�.n�Z�دz���֭��ڷ�^j�h����� j)������"�y�Z��b��z)���*'y�.��%j�"/���az�-��Š�j�lz�h��!�V�����ޡ�az�ޚ+�����"��Z�����v֤z)݊���-{l����%���v�Z�+0�����hzȧ�(����h��aZ��w�ڝ�^v���اjǫ���jw���h��������n�$j�롧����x��h�J�����j+����+p��]��i�rm�Z��h��^���������ڝ�k��^��h� .��鮆�n\�z�^~*��+y� �,޶�� �#�������l�g�~����g��ƫy�'��/z�"j_��������Z��^��j|�k/텫r���ƥ��j������h���V����"�y�h�j+z�Z����]���n������+z؜jV�vg���h��"q�_���Š����#�e��h��{���^�葬���������������������������������������Z�歖f��)�+-5�nj���+-��ښ����!�����0��ښ����?�������+-�w��v���e From brokaw at buffalo.edu Tue Jan 22 03:47:33 2008 From: brokaw at buffalo.edu (brokaw at buffalo.edu) Date: Mon, 21 Jan 2008 22:47:33 -0500 Subject: Aztec World Ages and the Calendar Stone Message-ID: 3)��zh�{az��j�hv�"�a{��|!��h�私��)�r%j�ru�ڵ���"�ay����ʇ���az�-��Š���ܢ��{�ay��u��~���j|����j�.����'�����j{�n�m��b��nu�-��%j)���!����-����׬�g��祱��j�.�����ܢ��{�.r�~�Z�*'�Ƨm�u�'n�a��쵩����ٞ��Z �ƥ��.���"ج���y�e�W��ئj׭��"��.�Z �ƥ�����Z �ƥ~V���Z�)�jX�jך���g������j�ly鬶�h�̩�)��ajܨ�Ƨ����b�h���&z����(�F��ޗ&����x-��b�+j{Z�/�z�ڭ��Ǟ��h��ajܨ��+�؜�ɞ��z�"�k��^��h��0��"��^����\�z��f�{����"�zz)���zl"�aj�ӆ+-ʗ�}��j�z{fjG���,��^j����쉹^v&�� �i�.�˛�֧�+ފ�.z�Ţ��jje{���.�!j����j�!y���^��,j���r��"��ʋ���,j���-m�v�텫j��^�x��V����!�.�֫�筅�r��ܮ+br+&��a��-jצz{b���y�'jh��杊x���hz���Ǟ��&z�Z�����'��%j)�� aj���3��,r��+�v�^��+y�b�{-�����Z���u����^����ֲ�+njW���j�(�Wfj�!������J��z1���y��g��M2y��{az����Ȟ�^��-{�^��������ȝz{Z�\��)܉׬����^�����)����)���ج�w"u��jV�u��+b�y�j{-��b����\�{k�����ⲉZ�*'j�^j���-��춉���Z�鞞ٞ��r�禲�z�"�ا�����i�m��m��2�צj؜�ܨ~�^q�^�֫��z�Z�x�r'^�֥y��r�-��\�{k���z�(���u�쵩݊x(~+l�+-zf��ȭ��'��j���'��m��az�����k&޶�{ .��ޚ�޶���'��jǨ~�^���z{ljwm�����q�l� �~'�Ǩ~�^��h���v����y�ڞ���ɷ���Z��jX�r���Ȭ��^��ӆ+"���r+�+az�"���'!��aj�q�݊�.��azǭ�)౩�v+���i�.��^�)칻-j{b��^�k+j�^��Z�ج�+,�x-�騺����� ���m�����i��Z�h���Z�����'��(�H�~V���,�hh���z0z����ޞ'�+&��������"����ڝ���^r�Z�*'����^� +�)���zW���v����fy�텫b�+)�띣���Z��b���Μ�'%���_�ۿ�z�ڭӫ�,�x�'��ejz,z{��*&{'��Ơ��h�G�����'%�ǥɫA��az�-��=����A��,���'(jw_��ݶ���(�֢��fj|������Z��z��z{�z�%� �����&��Z��"�֡��ezܦ�Z ���u�Z�kn����'� ڦ���3���[n���Z.�ȝy�z�^u�'������(jg��Ƨ��h��������޶���bq�i�)���!zw�����اj�������ޙ�^����^��鮊��'�����j{���h��^r�����#�e��-��-y�h�{Hº-y���.r%j)���¢{b�观��+��������az�-��� ��1�bq��{p�'!u楳�"�x��Ƨ�\��+a����]j���ayǥy�ڵ�R�t��w�}7���m��Z��!z������)jw���y�_�������ږǦm�]yا������v�z��(i�텫k�h��ج��a��b��j�v���קo+^��h�wly�!���~ܭŒ�j��N�jg��'!���t��w������axJ���:Yb���r'^�֥�'(�w"u�0��m��)�)�z����h}u����^1�(jg��Ƨ�{^�v���ڕֲr����ӆ+%j�\�����!y��j{Z�/ã�y�eɷ���޶����ל��'���y�az*ܭ歊�춊�aj�'yֲ�{az*��GZʸ���\jW�u���]��\��^J��*�)���&z���櫲���4�櫲)��Z������ފɚ��(������n��u�^�W���Z�]4�櫲)��Z����O�j�,2�-{;�k��>'���^�*%�&�zwZ� .�֫�筅�m�ج�+,�-��춉���ڗ+"�)����Z��̉�^���+)���zf����ǯz���欢{����N�z+z�Z�yrjZ-��lz�h��!�V����s���z��jw.�۫z������Ȝ���"�Z�쨺���kjب���+�n�Hv���Ǟ������n�rr��vƲ���-��춉�� +����ȧ��aj���(�/ȷ�����h��杊x-�Ʋ���+0������z{a��Z�؜�V����j\���Ⱬj�!~��r���'�׬��u��z��������؜��"�{��8^�je�ƭ����Z�)݊���-{lj����쥪ޞ֧w�텫g�g��Z �ƥ�杊x,��azf�z�ڥ���Vz�^���鞮�h�'���������޲����jj'�ɚ�X+��l�y�u����.��^jv�tK����z��j{(r'����*춇ږ_���j��j|���)y�l�����z��jx��z ��a��Z����w^��Z�����az���+~��jg���]��ޭ��z)��.�۫jX����jw��azjz���h����ɷ����y����z{�z�%� ���ay�&�v��{�z�%� ��ڝȞ��.�۫zȧn�a1�(jg��ƚ��.��^jwm��"u�^�-����w���'�g��Z ����Z��^�+pj�ޖ'�y�aj�az��jƧ�����ޞ�ޕ�b�{!��޷��{�m��jwm��^�׫�����n�������z�ڝ�a��������v�����r�m�������-���"ج������j{m�z-z�Z�)���n������ب��a����薈2�w�g���az��v�-���~ױ�ȧ������ޭ������8b���z-���q�,j���g���������)��ޖ'�{�aj�ax���(�֢��(�������buקr�^�������l���۫z'�y�.��'�'��ޢ���0��^r�^�����-�)�ج��ޭ�eɧz�^v�Z�w�����X�z����j{�z��jWb��슉텫fjx�z�^v+lzW�Ƞ�'�q������ȶ+zX����~��ũ���텫m���j��ٺ(�ȧ��{����jz'm��ǭ���j���W����{axw�����Zm��N�v������g���Z�'^�؟�)���鞮'�ئz{"�z��{a�Wl��{/���(��(���+-�ƥ�z0��`z�޽�چ']zy��Ơ{��+��ǫ����("��.�����a��.��u�쵩݊x(|w���-{njX����jwb��&yƬz��f�j�k���jץ��'����׭��^����br���u�쵩�q��j)�{l��n��薈2���z-��޶�Z��a{��z:+jدzǧ��ajح��^���y�u��Y�-z�ܺ[n��ȝ��������az���ƥ�+g�g��Z ʊ�����rج����1�(jg��Ƨr�m����wb�������s(����r������y��,�����ޞj+z�-���g����r�m������v+i���jx����j{k�W��)�觵�+jם�楚��X����y�'�h���ޖ("���h�/޵�����v�q觶�y�g�Z ��(}�&���q�b�x����I��W�������+�����b���I��{ajٚ�(�v(����'-� ڦ���m���ƙbr+eʷ���j���؞��ݱ�zw���jם�����'�h�j_���������jw\jW�v�����v�Z��az����j{b��b��j����~ק���鞮'�ئz{"�ӡ��������ק��0�'!����z ��a�Ȧj��+"���y�"��v(����鞮'�Ƞ�'�q��{��z�n+m�'$��-������ez�ƙbr+�jwazw�����(����쉩�"�b�Ka�Ȭ����k��^��h��� �z{m��Bj���+-�(������n�ڵ�ߢ��jje{�az{�z��jW(���jب�����*�.��jwR�q�v�-������jw_���z�^rدz\�"���ޭ���.��(���.�׫�֧v�^�('���jw���v(��������s+a�����^����)ߢ��jwb�����-yا�wb����^����+'�ٞ��rk�����z���(�ǩ������N�b�h������'�Ƨj\����q��{*.j����ښ)bj�"�������z�aj٢�c��b(b�)�z�kz֭���z ,z��jZ�z�b�{�9��r�����+���)���Z��hm��v'"��"���j�!z����ފ���ך��h}��u��{��-��춉݉�赶�z�j�.���v����j\����wb����(����azv��칻-j{b���i�(�޾'^���j�.���(!�Ǟ��&��e�x��b�����^��i��u������קq�讷�v)���g��Z �ƥv)��Ȩ������m���{�ڮ �z{A��az�-�zkzǧ�Ȭm�u�i�'"�\���(���jם���iا���g���"�ؠzz.�ױ��Ȟ�^����0�'! ���ޮ�������v)���t��w���(�����j[(��{�j{� �^�����z����'��l��^F*, �^��ax������~�]��^��j�m��Z� �j[���j؜j{����zw��ڝ�ax+�&�����v���������br��ج�+,�-��춉���ڗ+"�����ڲ˦�x!z�����j�"��+��-�/텫r��y���X�����-�����az�-��n�$jwm��^��-��ayȭz��~������bq�b���������ڕج�+,jZ�+� �z{b��Z��m����*.����z0��`z�Z��^��(����b����h��_y�m��m�죺�b/��-��춉����v)��)�z�kz֭����r��h��lk&���b����쵩��������m�++y��jب��-q��j)��f�m�h�ț��h���~�^�-��춉����g����)�׫��h����(�Waj�����rۚ�\������^ʋ�� �׫������� �z{[jǝ�|���0��ܢ��z��y�b� ��{l����"����h�ț�*-�������v�����"z-���l�*.‹�v�z���z�j�.���jwa����wb����(����ɷ���Z�業���+��Z��l��Z���g����!�(��Z� .���jx���޲ا��ݕ�"�)���(���n�b�{hk��r%j�rv+��"���ܨ�Ƨ�����~�^�)�jǝ�|���0���z��ɫ,z�^u����⵫b��'� ^v�~�^r���1�(jg��Ƨ��(����Z�؜�V��,!zpk��^��h��� �z{b��i�'"�\�jǝ��jv�j\����鞮�����j��{l��j�ez�(^���������az�-��jv��Ȭ�Ɯr�ڵ��z�rW��\��w���h��(�O���݊ج�wڊ��v*�z�h�ț��hv+&��!��(�H�ʋ�j�����v��ʋ������"r���h�쨹�'��Z��a��^��'jYr�Kޞ'Ƣ�h��z�k��z{h���~�����‹�uƮ�*'z��ʉ�j���ky���x(����^��^��(�H���!iƬ��������쵩���k/Ľ���^q������ʗ�~������h���*m��r�鞞ب���"�b�Kajح������jYrm�mz�h��-� �������(�����Z��Z���z��襷*v����^�������+�����r���ȳ�x2��"�!j��������Ǯv��r%j�!��Ң�b���'"�h��������Z��Z�����_�����b��rj�e��m�l�zWڳ����Z��ޮ�Z�+0��a��ȭ�(�x�z�Z��^��zئz�!zzlz�h��!�V��������h���� �wb��^��n��♨"��b�v�vf�z���֫��ܮ���)�y��������q�^�'0���"{a�ǜjǬ�+fk&ޝ��ƫ��"u�����+Z�˜��n��-�籵����֜�楗&��'�z�(��(�����r�r���+��"�)�s/⵩l�׬z�޲˛�֧�+ޭ�b�v���^j�h���������h��ޯ�!j����ݶ)��碞h���w���]rV��'���k��^��h��0���������h���*�:w�~�^����Ǭ��b���"��Z�����v֤z)݊���-{l����%���v�Z�+0�������"��h�J�����j+���jway��+b���*.�������Z�\�k/ȝ��F�n�w�ڞ�����$��axZ.��V��]�����(�Wi���n\�z�v� zׯz���)�(!���t����'‹�w�鮆�n\�z�^~*��+y� �,޶�� �#�������l�g�~�����鞞���(����쉩��Hv����b�Kaj�az����������Z�*.q��jYa�f��띣���Z���k)���!j����f��������(�Wlk&���m��az�޶'��ݙ�a��%��jW�jg����n�H�Y���h��{����������������������������������������������������Z�歖f��)�+-5�nj���+-��ښ����!�����0��ښ����?�������+-�w��v���e From oudyk at hotmail.com Tue Jan 22 04:45:30 2008 From: oudyk at hotmail.com (Michel Oudijk) Date: Tue, 22 Jan 2008 04:45:30 +0000 Subject: Aztec World Ages and the Calendar Stone In-Reply-To: <47951DAE.7040107@buffalo.edu> Message-ID: Dear all, For those of you who would like to know what the Sun Stone is about, please read Michel Graulich's article 'La piedra del sol' in "Azteca Mexica: Las culturas del México antiguo" (José Alcina Franch, Miguel León-Portilla and Eduardo Matos Moctezuma (eds.), INAH/Quinto Centenario/Lunwerg, Madrid, pp. 291-295). Compare that reading with Brotherston's and I think the issue will be clear. I certainly agree with Galen on one thing; I just should have ignored the message. Michel > Date: Mon, 21 Jan 2008 17:33:18 -0500> From: brokaw at buffalo.edu> CC: nahuatl at lists.famsi.org> Subject: Re: [Nahuat-l] Aztec World Ages and the Calendar Stone> > Dear Michel and Listeros,> I don't have an answer to Carl's question, but I would contest Michel's > assertion that Brotherston's analysis is "pure numerology" that has > "nothing to do with Mesoamerican culture, history or cosmovision." In > the interest of full disclosure, I should say that I studied under > Brotherston in graduate school, and I admire his work. However, I think > that I am fairly intellectually independent. With that disclaimer, I > would argue that to dismiss Brotherston's analysis in the way that > Michel does is problematic for several reasons.> > There is certainly a lot of pseudo-scholarship on Mesoamerican cultures, > and, Michel, I share your frustration with it; but I don't see how > anybody could say that Brotherston's work falls into that category. It > is very misleading to say that his work, or even this particular > analysis, is a search for "cryptic codes, hidden messages, or mystic > signs." The implication is that indigenous texts are transparent and > that numerological readings of them are on a par with Western > numerological beliefs that have survived among small groups in modern > European and Euro-american societies. First of all, there are many > aspects of Mesoamerican iconography that we don't understand. And there > is a fundamental difference in the cultural importance of the modern > minority beliefs in new-age numerology and the dominant numerology of > ancient cultures in both Mesoamerica and Europe and the Middle East. In > Hebrew numerology, for example, it was believed that there was an > inherent relationship between numbers and the letters of the Hebrew > alphabet; and this was part of a dominant cultural perspective. It is > important to note that in the Hebrew tradition, this numerology informed > the production of texts in various different ways. This does not > necessarily mean, as some people believe, that the Bible contains some > sort of hidden code that predicts the future if we could only figure out > how to decode it. But I think it is generally accepted that Hebrew > literacy had a numerical dimension that manifested itself in significant > ways. It is believed, for example, that there are 22 books in the Jewish > canon because there are 22 letters in the Hebrew alphabet. This doesn't > mean that identifying this numerical dimension of the text holds the key > to some sort of mystical knowledge or even a hidden message, but it > certainly gives us a more thorough understanding of Hebrew textuality; > and in some cases, it may appropriately contribute to the way in which > we understand certain texts. "Numerology" does not have to have the > pejorative sense that it often has in modern Western culture. In any > case, whether you call it numerology or not, the fact is that in > Mesoamerican cultures indigenous numeracy is very complex (in many ways, > even more so than in Western cultures), and it plays an important role > in the integrated realm of politics, economics, religion, history, etc., > and hence in the technologies of communication in which knowledge was > inscribed. It is well known that many indigenous pictographic texts > explicitly record quantities and sequences related to astronomical > observations and calendrics, and that other non-quantitative imagery > often has a numerical dimension. To be sure, the extent to which > iconographic imagery is infused with indigenous numerical significance > gets a bit tricky. It is often much less explicit, and hence more > controversial. I think this is part of Brotherston's argument that Carl > is trying to corroborate: for example, the numerical correlation of the > Fire Lord and Sun God to the numbers one and four respectively. In > general, though, trying to understand the significance of indigenous > numeracy through the way it informs and is reflected in indigenous texts > is not merely a "game of numbers and concepts."> > To dismiss Brotherston's analysis because you are not familiar with any > sources that might justify his interpretation begs several questions. Of > course, it is always important to be judicious in areas where there is a > dearth of evidence. If Brotherston did not base his argument on an > analysis of indigenous sources, then a non-substantive "lack of > evidence" argument might seem compelling. But in fact there is abundant > evidence for reading the numerological dimension of these texts. The > argument Brotherston presents is based explicitly on a correlated > reading of numerous indigenous texts. In the pages to which Carl refers, > he is reading the Sun Stone, of course, but also the Mexicanus Codex, > the Tepexic Annals, the Rios Codex, the Paris screenfold, the > Cuauhtitlan Annals, the Vaticanus screenfold, and the Borgia.> > Based on the casual way in which you dismiss Brotherston's analysis, I'm > assuming here (perhaps incorrectly) that you are familiar with both > Brotherston's book and the texts that he cites. If so, the implication > of your general dismissal of his argument is that although you > acknowledge that these sources exist, you don't feel that they justify > Brotherston's reading/interpretation. But you don't say anything > substantive to back up this refutation. It certainly may be possible to > refute Brotherston's argument, but in order to do so, you would have to > actually formulate your own interpretive argument based on your own > counter-reading of the texts that he cites and possibly others that he > doesn't. In other words, you would have to engage his argument and his > indigenous sources. Maybe you have already formulated such an argument. > If so, that would be an interesting and legitimate contribution to a > scholarly discussion. But you can't just refute him based on your own > merely asserted authoritative knowledge of the corpus of Mesoamerican > sources, particularly when Brotherston's argument is explicitly based on > an analysis of numerous primary texts. Regardless of whether or not > Brotherston's analysis is accurate, he has clearly done his homework, > and it is unfair and irresponsible to dismiss his work if you haven't > done yours.> > Michel, I hope you don't take this personally. Even if Gordon weren't a > mentor and friend, I would caution everyone against refuting other > people's work in such a casual, non-substantive way. Even in the case of > the type of pseudo-scholarship that you mentioned, I think that it is > normally better to just ignore it. I must confess that I have been > guilty of doing the same thing for which I'm criticizing you with what I > felt was pseudo-scholarship. So this criticism is something that I have > self-reflexively applied to myself as well, for whatever that is worth. > I recognize that there are times when pseudo-scholarship gains a lot of > ground in the popular imagination and may even start encroaching on more > serious academic work. In those cases, it may be necessary to identify > it as such. But to the extent that it actually achieves some sort of > encroachment or legitimacy, it also deserves substantive refutation at > least once.> > Again, however, I have a hard time seeing how anyone could classify > Brotherston's work as pseudo-scholarship. One of the premises of his > work is that we should take indigenous texts seriously, and that is what > he does in _Book of the Fourth World_; and he does it in a serious and > scholarly way. In a book as broad-ranging as _Book of the Fourth World_, > it would probably be hard to get everything right, and Brotherston would > probably be the first to recognize that. And I'm sure that some of his > arguments are controversial. But I don't think that there is any way > that you can call him a pseudo-scholar or layman. I have a lot more that > I could say about the theoretical and methodological framework, but I'll > stop here.> > Galen Brokaw> > > > > > Michel Oudijk wrote:> > This is pure numerology and has nothing to do whatsoever with> > Mesoamerican culture, history or cosmovision. At least, I don't know> > of any indigenous sources, present or past, that justify this game> > of numbers and concepts. This search for encrypted codes, hidden> > messages, or mystic signs is a 'cosmic dragon' created by pseudo> > scholars and laymen without any kind of theoretical or> > methodological framework.> > > > Michel R. Oudijk> > Seminario de Lenguas Indígenas> > Instituto de Investigaciones Filológicas> > Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México> > > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------> > Date: Sat, 19 Jan 2008 09:16:01 -0800> > From: ahchich1 at yahoo.com> > To: Nahuatl at lists.famsi.org> > Subject: [Nahuat-l] Aztec World Ages and the Calendar Stone> > > > Dear Friends,> > > > I have a question concerning the possible span of a world age as> > numerically recorded on the Aztec Calendar Stone. Gorden Brotherston in his> > Book of the Forth World (see his fig. 54 and pages 298-299) believes> > that the Aztec scribes encoded mathematically the time spans of world ages> > into the stone via the "mixcoa" or cloud serpents that frame the> > outer rim of the great stone. I am not an Aztec scholar so I can> > not refute or verify his interpretation. I hope those of you who are> > familiar with Aztec signs and iconography can tell me if his reading> > is at least plausible. > > > > Here is what he writes on page 299 of the work:> > > > "Just as the Era Four Ollin visually frames the proceeding four world> > ages at the center of the sunstone, so its length is recorded on the rim> > as we saw, in ten lots of ten Rounds imaged as cloud-snakes that issue> > from the squared scales of sky dragons to> > right and left. Now as we> > noted above, the heads peering from the dragons' maws below belong> > respectively to Fire Lord (left) and the Sun (right), who are One and Four in> > the set of thirteen Heroes. Hence, each endows its dragon and the> > Rounds on its back with number value, a capacity they and others among them> > display, for example, in the Pinturas transcription of the world-age> > story. As One, Fire Lord simply confirms the 5,200-year total; as Four,> > Sun multiples it to 20,800 to the remaining four-fifths of the Great> > Year [26,000 years]. Hence:> > > > 1x10x10x52=200> > 4x10x10x52 ,800> > > > 26,000> > > > > > In the Cuauhtitlan Annals transcription of the Sunstone cosmogony, the> > four-fifths of the Great Year is noted as "CCCC mixcoa," that is, four> > hundred cloud-snake rounds."> > > > > > My questions are these:> > > > Do the Fire Lord and the Sun God have numerical equivalents of 1 and 4?> > > > Are the 10> > glyphs bordered by ten dots on the backs of the Serpents> > glyphs/names for the 52 year period?> > > > Where else in Aztec lit. is it mentioned that the so called cloud> > serpents manifest or are seen as representing a world Era?> > > > Finally is Gorden Brotherston still amongst the living so I might ask> > him directly?> > > > IF GB is correct, then I believe there are are interesting parallels> > that can be made to the art, numerology and iconography of other> > MesoAmerican cultures.> > > > I look forward to your answers.> > > > Carl Callaway> > > > > > > > > > > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------> > Be a better friend, newshound, and know-it-all with Yahoo!> > Mobile. Try it now.> > > > > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------> > Express yourself instantly with MSN Messenger! MSN Messenger> > > > > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------> > Express yourself instantly with MSN Messenger! MSN Messenger > > > > > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------> > > > _______________________________________________> > Nahuatl mailing list> > Nahuatl at lists.famsi.org> > http://www.famsi.org/mailman/listinfo/nahuatl> > _______________________________________________> Nahuatl mailing list> Nahuatl at lists.famsi.org> http://www.famsi.org/mailman/listinfo/nahuatl _________________________________________________________________ Express yourself instantly with MSN Messenger! Download today it's FREE! http://messenger.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200471ave/direct/01/ -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- _______________________________________________ Nahuatl mailing list Nahuatl at lists.famsi.org http://www.famsi.org/mailman/listinfo/nahuatl From a.appleyard at btinternet.com Tue Jan 22 05:51:41 2008 From: a.appleyard at btinternet.com (ANTHONY APPLEYARD) Date: Tue, 22 Jan 2008 05:51:41 +0000 Subject: Codes used for messages Message-ID: These two messages from this group: From: brokaw at buffalo.edu at Mon, 21 Jan 2008 22:47:33 -0500 From: bortiz at earthlink.net at Mon, 21 Jan 2008 18:27:01 -0500 (EST) both with title Re: [Nahuat-l] Aztec World Ages and the Calendar Stone reached me as a random jumble of characters, e.g.: "J‰žÉ櫱¨("Z(‘çi­ëmÉÉh±érjÐk¢Ø^®ËhžÃڊ{^t(’Ê1ìbr†§uú.ÛajØ­r‰íj)Þv" What mode were they input as? _______________________________________________ Nahuatl mailing list Nahuatl at lists.famsi.org http://www.famsi.org/mailman/listinfo/nahuatl From mwswanton at yahoo.com Tue Jan 22 07:47:58 2008 From: mwswanton at yahoo.com (Michael Swanton) Date: Mon, 21 Jan 2008 23:47:58 -0800 Subject: Aztec World Ages and the Calendar Stone In-Reply-To: <47951DAE.7040107@buffalo.edu> Message-ID: “It is well known that many indigenous pictographic texts explicitly record quantities and sequences related to astronomical observations and calendrics, and that other non-quantitative imagery often has a numerical dimension.” Outside the Maya region, what Mesoamerican codices explicitly record astronomical observations? --- Galen Brokaw wrote: > Dear Michel and Listeros, > I don't have an answer to Carl's question, but I > would contest Michel's > assertion that Brotherston's analysis is "pure > numerology" that has > "nothing to do with Mesoamerican culture, history or > cosmovision." In > the interest of full disclosure, I should say that I > studied under > Brotherston in graduate school, and I admire his > work. However, I think > that I am fairly intellectually independent. With > that disclaimer, I > would argue that to dismiss Brotherston's analysis > in the way that > Michel does is problematic for several reasons. > > There is certainly a lot of pseudo-scholarship on > Mesoamerican cultures, > and, Michel, I share your frustration with it; but I > don't see how > anybody could say that Brotherston's work falls into > that category. It > is very misleading to say that his work, or even > this particular > analysis, is a search for "cryptic codes, hidden > messages, or mystic > signs." The implication is that indigenous texts are > transparent and > that numerological readings of them are on a par > with Western > numerological beliefs that have survived among small > groups in modern > European and Euro-american societies. First of all, > there are many > aspects of Mesoamerican iconography that we don't > understand. And there > is a fundamental difference in the cultural > importance of the modern > minority beliefs in new-age numerology and the > dominant numerology of > ancient cultures in both Mesoamerica and Europe and > the Middle East. In > Hebrew numerology, for example, it was believed that > there was an > inherent relationship between numbers and the > letters of the Hebrew > alphabet; and this was part of a dominant cultural > perspective. It is > important to note that in the Hebrew tradition, this > numerology informed > the production of texts in various different ways. > This does not > necessarily mean, as some people believe, that the > Bible contains some > sort of hidden code that predicts the future if we > could only figure out > how to decode it. But I think it is generally > accepted that Hebrew > literacy had a numerical dimension that manifested > itself in significant > ways. It is believed, for example, that there are 22 > books in the Jewish > canon because there are 22 letters in the Hebrew > alphabet. This doesn't > mean that identifying this numerical dimension of > the text holds the key > to some sort of mystical knowledge or even a hidden > message, but it > certainly gives us a more thorough understanding of > Hebrew textuality; > and in some cases, it may appropriately contribute > to the way in which > we understand certain texts. "Numerology" does not > have to have the > pejorative sense that it often has in modern Western > culture. In any > case, whether you call it numerology or not, the > fact is that in > Mesoamerican cultures indigenous numeracy is very > complex (in many ways, > even more so than in Western cultures), and it plays > an important role > in the integrated realm of politics, economics, > religion, history, etc., > and hence in the technologies of communication in > which knowledge was > inscribed. It is well known that many indigenous > pictographic texts > explicitly record quantities and sequences related > to astronomical > observations and calendrics, and that other > non-quantitative imagery > often has a numerical dimension. To be sure, the > extent to which > iconographic imagery is infused with indigenous > numerical significance > gets a bit tricky. It is often much less explicit, > and hence more > controversial. I think this is part of Brotherston's > argument that Carl > is trying to corroborate: for example, the numerical > correlation of the > Fire Lord and Sun God to the numbers one and four > respectively. In > general, though, trying to understand the > significance of indigenous > numeracy through the way it informs and is reflected > in indigenous texts > is not merely a "game of numbers and concepts." > > To dismiss Brotherston's analysis because you are > not familiar with any > sources that might justify his interpretation begs > several questions. Of > course, it is always important to be judicious in > areas where there is a > dearth of evidence. If Brotherston did not base his > argument on an > analysis of indigenous sources, then a > non-substantive "lack of > evidence" argument might seem compelling. But in > fact there is abundant > evidence for reading the numerological dimension of > these texts. The > argument Brotherston presents is based explicitly on > a correlated > reading of numerous indigenous texts. In the pages > to which Carl refers, > he is reading the Sun Stone, of course, but also the > Mexicanus Codex, > the Tepexic Annals, the Rios Codex, the Paris > screenfold, the > Cuauhtitlan Annals, the Vaticanus screenfold, and > the Borgia. > > Based on the casual way in which you dismiss > Brotherston's analysis, I'm > assuming here (perhaps incorrectly) that you are > familiar with both > Brotherston's book and the texts that he cites. If > so, the implication > of your general dismissal of his argument is that > although you > acknowledge that these sources exist, you don't feel > that they justify > Brotherston's reading/interpretation. But you don't > say anything > substantive to back up this refutation. It certainly > may be possible to > refute Brotherston's argument, but in order to do > so, you would have to > actually formulate your own interpretive argument > based on your own > counter-reading of the texts that he cites and > possibly others that he > doesn't. In other words, you would have to engage > his argument and his > indigenous sources. Maybe you have already > formulated such an argument. > If so, that would be an interesting and legitimate > contribution to a > scholarly discussion. But you can't just refute him > based on your own > merely asserted authoritative knowledge of the > corpus of Mesoamerican > sources, particularly when Brotherston's argument is > explicitly based on > an analysis of numerous primary texts. Regardless of > whether or not > Brotherston's analysis is accurate, he has clearly > done his homework, > and it is unfair and irresponsible to dismiss his > work if you haven't > done yours. > > Michel, I hope you don't take this personally. Even > if Gordon weren't a > mentor and friend, I would caution everyone against > refuting other > people's work in such a casual, non-substantive way. > Even in the case of > the type of pseudo-scholarship that you mentioned, I > think that it is > normally better to just ignore it. I must confess > that I have been > guilty of doing the same thing for which I'm > criticizing you with what I > felt was pseudo-scholarship. So this criticism is > something that I have > self-reflexively applied to myself as well, for > whatever that is worth. > I recognize that there are times when > pseudo-scholarship gains a lot of > ground in the popular imagination and may even start > encroaching on more > serious academic work. In those cases, it may be > necessary to identify > it as such. But to the extent that it actually > achieves some sort of > encroachment or legitimacy, it also deserves > substantive refutation at > least once. > > Again, however, I have a hard time seeing how anyone > could classify > Brotherston's work as pseudo-scholarship. One of the > premises of his > work is that we should take indigenous texts > seriously, and that is what > he does in _Book of the Fourth World_; and he does > it in a serious and > scholarly way. In a book as broad-ranging as _Book > of the Fourth World_, > it would probably be hard to get everything right, > and Brotherston would > probably be the first to recognize that. And I'm > sure that some of his > arguments are controversial. But I don't think that > there is any way > that you can call him a pseudo-scholar or layman. I > have a lot more that > I could say about the theoretical and methodological > framework, but I'll > stop here. > > Galen Brokaw > > > > > > Michel Oudijk wrote: > > This is pure numerology and has nothing to do > whatsoever with > > Mesoamerican culture, history or cosmovision. > At least, I don't know > > of any indigenous sources, present or past, > that justify this game > > of numbers and concepts. This search for > encrypted codes, hidden > > messages, or mystic signs is a 'cosmic dragon' > created by pseudo > > scholars and laymen without any kind of > theoretical or > > methodological framework. > > > > Michel R. Oudijk > > Seminario de Lenguas Indígenas > > Instituto de Investigaciones Filológicas > > Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México > > > > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > Date: Sat, 19 Jan 2008 09:16:01 -0800 > > From: ahchich1 at yahoo.com > > To: Nahuatl at lists.famsi.org > > Subject: [Nahuat-l] Aztec World Ages and > the Calendar Stone > > > > Dear Friends, > > > > I have a question concerning the possible > span of a world age as > > numerically recorded on the Aztec > Calendar Stone. Gorden Brotherston in his > > Book of the Forth World (see his fig. 54 > and pages 298-299) believes > > that the Aztec scribes encoded > mathematically the time spans of world ages > > into the stone via the "mixcoa" or > cloud serpents that frame the > > outer rim of the great stone. I am > not an Aztec scholar so I can > > not refute or verify his > interpretation. I hope those of you who are > > familiar with Aztec signs and > iconography can tell me if his reading > > is at least plausible. > > > > Here is what he writes on page 299 of the > work: > > > > "Just as the Era Four Ollin visually > frames the proceeding four world > > ages at the center of the sunstone, so > its length is recorded on the rim > > as we saw, in ten lots of ten Rounds > imaged as cloud-snakes that issue > > from the squared scales of sky dragons to > > right and left. Now as we > > noted above, the heads peering from the > dragons' maws below belong > > respectively to Fire Lord (left) and the > Sun (right), who are One and Four in > > the set of thirteen Heroes. Hence, each > endows its dragon and the > > Rounds on its back with number value, a > capacity they and others among them > > display, for example, in the Pinturas > transcription of the world-age > > story. As One, Fire Lord simply confirms > the 5,200-year total; as Four, > > Sun multiples it to 20,800 to the > remaining four-fifths of the Great > > Year [26,000 years]. Hence: > > > > 1x10x10x52R00 > > 4x10x10x52 ,800 > > > > 26,000 > > > > > > In the Cuauhtitlan Annals transcription of > the Sunstone cosmogony, the > > four-fifths of the Great Year is noted as > "CCCC mixcoa," that is, four > > hundred cloud-snake rounds." > > > > > > My questions are these: > > > > Do the Fire Lord and the Sun God have > numerical equivalents of 1 and 4? > > > > Are the 10 > > glyphs bordered by ten dots on the backs > of the Serpents > > glyphs/names for the 52 year period? > > > > Where else in Aztec lit. is it mentioned > that the so called cloud > > serpents manifest or are seen as > representing a world Era? > > > > Finally is Gorden Brotherston still > amongst the living so I might ask > > him directly? > > > > IF GB is correct, then I believe there are > are interesting parallels > > that can be made to the art, numerology > and iconography of other > > MesoAmerican cultures. > > > > I look forward to your answers. > > > > Carl Callaway > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > Be a better friend, newshound, and > know-it-all with Yahoo! > > Mobile. Try it now. > > > > > > > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > Express yourself instantly with MSN Messenger! > MSN Messenger > > > > > > > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > Express yourself instantly with MSN Messenger! MSN > Messenger > > > > > > > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Nahuatl mailing list > > Nahuatl at lists.famsi.org > > http://www.famsi.org/mailman/listinfo/nahuatl > > _______________________________________________ > Nahuatl mailing list > Nahuatl at lists.famsi.org > http://www.famsi.org/mailman/listinfo/nahuatl > ____________________________________________________________________________________ Looking for last minute shopping deals? Find them fast with Yahoo! Search. http://tools.search.yahoo.com/newsearch/category.php?category_______________________________________________ Nahuatl mailing list Nahuatl at lists.famsi.org http://www.famsi.org/mailman/listinfo/nahuatl From brokaw at buffalo.edu Tue Jan 22 14:38:02 2008 From: brokaw at buffalo.edu (Galen Brokaw) Date: Tue, 22 Jan 2008 09:38:02 -0500 Subject: Aztec World Ages and the Calendar Stone In-Reply-To: <615655.96265.qm@web31711.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: Michael, Although I was not specific, you are right that I was referring in general to Mesoamerican texts, not just the Maya. But I did not refer to actual astronomical observations themselves. I referred to quantities and sequences "_related_ to astronomical observations." Variations of the calendar, which was originally based on actual astronomical observations, were wide-spread in Mesoamerica. And there seems to be a "numerology" associated with calendrics that extends to more general cosmogony and religion. Thus, the numbers and sequences involved in calendrics and cosmogonic numerology throughout Mesoamerica are _related_ in one way or another to the astronomical observations explicitly made by the Maya. I could be wrong, but I don't think that in general terms this is controversial. It seems to me that the controversial part has to do with the extent to which, and the particular way in which, indigenous texts are infused with numerological significance. Galen Michael Swanton wrote: > “It is well known that many indigenous pictographic > texts explicitly record quantities and sequences > related to astronomical observations and calendrics, > and that other non-quantitative imagery often has a > numerical dimension.” > > Outside the Maya region, what Mesoamerican codices > explicitly record astronomical observations? > _______________________________________________ Nahuatl mailing list Nahuatl at lists.famsi.org http://www.famsi.org/mailman/listinfo/nahuatl From brokaw at buffalo.edu Tue Jan 22 14:47:49 2008 From: brokaw at buffalo.edu (Galen Brokaw) Date: Tue, 22 Jan 2008 09:47:49 -0500 Subject: Codes used for messages In-Reply-To: <558436.8679.qm@web86707.mail.ird.yahoo.com> Message-ID: Evidently both Bernard's post and my response were unreadable. I think Bernard accidentally reposted his message to Aztlan. I reposted mine again in response to his before I realized that it was going to Aztlan. I'll repost it here for anyone who is not subscribed to Aztlan: My main point here has to do with the way in which one engages in scholarly debate, not with the accuracy of Brotherston's work. Of course, the burden of proof of any given argument is on the claimant, but that includes the claimant who wishes to refute someone else's argument. Of course, such refutations can be made on both substantive and methodological grounds. It is perfectly legitimate to point out logical or methodological flaws that invalidate an argument, as Bernard seems to do. My point is that you can't just dismiss someone's work by merely asserting that it is fantasy. Bernard, it seems to me that your criticism engages with Brotherston's work in a perfectly legitimate way, and I have no problem with that. This type of engagement makes possible a responsible dialogue about substantive issues. For example, although I haven't searched for the passage that you cite in your message, just based on that quote in isolation, one could argue that your criticism of this statement is based on a misreading: it doesn't seem to me that Brotherston is claiming that "the Aztecs contrived their creation story so that one day in their 260 day ritual calendar would match the Spring Equinox of a year some 4700 years in the past." In the quote, he says that it "incidentally coincides" with the spring equinox. Saying that it is incidental by definition means that it was not contrived. In isolation at least, Brotherston's statement merely seems to be pointing out the fact that the systematicity of the calendar has certain incidental effects that contribute to our understanding of its systematicity. In the larger context of the quote, maybe there would be more to say. In the case of the serpents and the numerical significance of their dots, I don't have an answer. Maybe you have a valid criticism there. This is precisely the point, which is that we can discuss these things and disagree about them in substantive terms rather than dismissing them out of hand. As I said before, I'm not claiming that Brotherston's work is flawless. Whose is? However, even if it is more fraught with error and/or speculation than other work in the field, that does not mean that it is pseudo-scholarship. Galen ANTHONY APPLEYARD wrote: > These two messages from this group: > From: brokaw at buffalo.edu at Mon, 21 Jan 2008 22:47:33 -0500 > From: bortiz at earthlink.net at Mon, 21 Jan 2008 18:27:01 -0500 (EST) > both with title > Re: [Nahuat-l] Aztec World Ages and the Calendar Stone > reached me as a random jumble of characters, e.g.: > "J���櫱�("Z(��i��m��h��rj�k��^��h��ڊ{^t(��1�br��u�.��ajحr��j)�v" > What mode were they input as? > > _______________________________________________ > Nahuatl mailing list > Nahuatl at lists.famsi.org > http://www.famsi.org/mailman/listinfo/nahuatl > > -------------- next part -------------- _______________________________________________ Nahuatl mailing list Nahuatl at lists.famsi.org http://www.famsi.org/mailman/listinfo/nahuatl From dcwright at prodigy.net.mx Tue Jan 22 16:35:07 2008 From: dcwright at prodigy.net.mx (David Wright) Date: Tue, 22 Jan 2008 10:35:07 -0600 Subject: Codes used for messages Message-ID: They came in blank on my machine. >[Anthony Appleyard wrote:] >These two messages from this group: >From: brokaw at buffalo.edu at Mon, 21 Jan 2008 22:47:33 -0500 >From: bortiz at earthlink.net at Mon, 21 Jan 2008 18:27:01 -0500 (EST) >both with title >Re: [Nahuat-l] Aztec World Ages and the Calendar Stone >reached me as a random jumble of characters, e.g.: >"J‰žÉ櫱¨("Z(‘çiëmÉÉh±érjÐk¢Ø^®ËhžÃÚŠ{^t(’Ê1ìbr†§uú.ÛajØr‰íj)Þv" >What mode were they input as? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- _______________________________________________ Nahuatl mailing list Nahuatl at lists.famsi.org http://www.famsi.org/mailman/listinfo/nahuatl From jeanne.gillespie at usm.edu Tue Jan 22 18:19:23 2008 From: jeanne.gillespie at usm.edu (Jeanne Gillespie) Date: Tue, 22 Jan 2008 12:19:23 -0600 Subject: Fwd: Codes used for messages In-Reply-To: Message-ID: I agree with Galen, and I would like to add that in terms of the scholarly minds Gordon has trained and inspired and the international scholars he has brought together for dialogue and sharing over the past twenty years, Gordon has been extremely influential among the international community of thinkers and analysts of Mesoamerican texts and their contexts. His work has caused many of us to reexamine a text for a specific purpose (including numerical significance, place name relevance, geo-spatial information) that has led to further understanding of many of the canonical and non-canonical pictorial (and alphabetic!) manuscripts. He has also helped students and scholars have access to materials in libraries around the world not previously available, and he is most generous in engaging in scholarly discussion and debate about his work. I think you can contact him at his Essex email, ( http://www.essex.ac.uk/literature/people/gordon_brotherston.htm) but someone may have a more up-to-date one. For questions about the calendar stone, I suggest that you contact Emily Umberger at Arizona State and Cecelia Klein at UCLA as well. Jeanne On Jan 22, 2008 8:47 AM, Galen Brokaw wrote: > Evidently both Bernard's post and my response were unreadable. I think > Bernard accidentally reposted his message to Aztlan. I reposted mine > again in response to his before I realized that it was going to Aztlan. > I'll repost it here for anyone who is not subscribed to Aztlan: > > My main point here has to do with the way in which one engages in > scholarly debate, not with the accuracy of Brotherston's work. Of > course, the burden of proof of any given argument is on the claimant, > but that includes the claimant who wishes to refute someone else's > argument. Of course, such refutations can be made on both substantive > and methodological grounds. It is perfectly legitimate to point out > logical or methodological flaws that invalidate an argument, as Bernard > seems to do. My point is that you can't just dismiss someone's work by > merely asserting that it is fantasy. Bernard, it seems to me that your > criticism engages with Brotherston's work in a perfectly legitimate way, > and I have no problem with that. This type of engagement makes possible > a responsible dialogue about substantive issues. For example, although I > haven't searched for the passage that you cite in your message, just > based on that quote in isolation, one could argue that your criticism of > this statement is based on a misreading: it doesn't seem to me that > Brotherston is claiming that "the Aztecs contrived their creation story > so that one day in their 260 day ritual calendar would match the Spring > Equinox of a year some 4700 years in the past." In the quote, he says > that it "incidentally coincides" with the spring equinox. Saying that it > is incidental by definition means that it was not contrived. In > isolation at least, Brotherston's statement merely seems to be pointing > out the fact that the systematicity of the calendar has certain > incidental effects that contribute to our understanding of its > systematicity. In the larger context of the quote, maybe there would be > more to say. In the case of the serpents and the numerical significance > of their dots, I don't have an answer. Maybe you have a valid criticism > there. This is precisely the point, which is that we can discuss these > things and disagree about them in substantive terms rather than > dismissing them out of hand. As I said before, I'm not claiming that > Brotherston's work is flawless. Whose is? However, even if it is more > fraught with error and/or speculation than other work in the field, that > does not mean that it is pseudo-scholarship. > > Galen > > > ANTHONY APPLEYARD wrote: > > These two messages from this group: > > From: brokaw at buffalo.edu at Mon, 21 Jan 2008 22:47:33 -0500 > > From: bortiz at earthlink.net at Mon, 21 Jan 2008 18:27:01 -0500 (EST) > > both with title > > Re: [Nahuat-l] Aztec World Ages and the Calendar Stone > > reached me as a random jumble of characters, e.g.: > > "J‰žÉ櫱¨("Z('çi­ëmÉÉh±érjÐk¢Ø^(R)ËhžÃÚŠ{^t ('Ê 1ìbr†§uú. ÛajØ­r‰íj)Þv" > > What mode were they input as? > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Nahuatl mailing list > > Nahuatl at lists.famsi.org > > http://www.famsi.org/mailman/listinfo/nahuatl > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > Nahuatl mailing list > Nahuatl at lists.famsi.org > http://www.famsi.org/mailman/listinfo/nahuatl > > -- Jeanne L. Gillespie, Ph.D. Associate Dean College of Arts and Letters The University of Southern Mississippi 601-266-4315 jeanne.gillespie at usm.edu -- Jeanne L. Gillespie, Ph.D. Associate Dean College of Arts and Letters The University of Southern Mississippi 601-266-4315 jeanne.gillespie at usm.edu -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- _______________________________________________ Nahuatl mailing list Nahuatl at lists.famsi.org http://www.famsi.org/mailman/listinfo/nahuatl From jrabasa at berkeley.edu Tue Jan 22 18:49:46 2008 From: jrabasa at berkeley.edu (=?iso-8859-1?Q?Jos=E9_Rabasa?=) Date: Tue, 22 Jan 2008 10:49:46 -0800 Subject: Fwd: Codes used for messages In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Dear All: As in Galen’s case, I have been a friend of Gordon for the last 30 years. Although I have not been his student in any formal way, I have learned from Gordon’s erudite knowledge of the “literatures” of the Americas. I could not agree more with Jeanne's assessment of his scholarship. His ability to address a far range of texts spanning from Watunna to Navajo sand paintings and beyond is exceptional. His dedication to Mesoamerican studies has been a constant during all these years. His publications in numerous periodicals, including Estudios de Cultura Nahuatl, and the translation of Book of the Fourth World to Spanish, suggests that those in the editorial boards have not thought of Gordon as a pseudo-scholar. But perhaps Michel would want us to assume that the scholars who have recognized the merits of his work are deficient scholars that couldn’t identify the pseudo among them. To find theory lacking in someone who can cite Levi-Strauss, Jacobson, Derrida, Whorf, Sapir, Goffman among other great theoreticians of the 20th century in one breath, let alone dutifully read all that is published in Mesoamerican studies, implies either a lack of understanding of what theory is or just plain ignorance. We all make mistakes in theory, in factual matters, in etymologies as well as in faulty transcriptions and translations. But as I write “we” I tremble to have the orthodox (Bernard's term) Mesoamerican thought police come after me. But, perhaps, Mesoamerican studies is defined by a doctrine that I ignore, and might be more “clubby” than I expected. I rather view this exchange as an anomaly than as the general practice in this listing and in the interdisciplinary exchanges that make Mesoamerican studies an exciting field. Jose Rabasa > I agree with Galen, and I would like to add that in terms of the scholarly > minds Gordon has trained and inspired and the international scholars he > has > brought together for dialogue and sharing over the past twenty years, > Gordon > has been extremely influential among the international community of > thinkers > and analysts of Mesoamerican texts and their contexts. His work has > caused > many of us to reexamine a text for a specific purpose (including numerical > significance, place name relevance, geo-spatial information) that has led > to > further understanding of many of the canonical and non-canonical pictorial > (and alphabetic!) manuscripts. He has also helped students and scholars > have access to materials in libraries around the world not previously > available, and he is most generous in engaging in scholarly discussion and > debate about his work. I think you can contact him at his Essex email, ( > http://www.essex.ac.uk/literature/people/gordon_brotherston.htm) but > someone > may have a more up-to-date one. For questions about the calendar stone, I > suggest that you contact Emily Umberger at Arizona State and Cecelia Klein > at UCLA as well. > Jeanne > > > On Jan 22, 2008 8:47 AM, Galen Brokaw wrote: > >> Evidently both Bernard's post and my response were unreadable. I think >> Bernard accidentally reposted his message to Aztlan. I reposted mine >> again in response to his before I realized that it was going to Aztlan. >> I'll repost it here for anyone who is not subscribed to Aztlan: >> >> My main point here has to do with the way in which one engages in >> scholarly debate, not with the accuracy of Brotherston's work. Of >> course, the burden of proof of any given argument is on the claimant, >> but that includes the claimant who wishes to refute someone else's >> argument. Of course, such refutations can be made on both substantive >> and methodological grounds. It is perfectly legitimate to point out >> logical or methodological flaws that invalidate an argument, as Bernard >> seems to do. My point is that you can't just dismiss someone's work by >> merely asserting that it is fantasy. Bernard, it seems to me that your >> criticism engages with Brotherston's work in a perfectly legitimate way, >> and I have no problem with that. This type of engagement makes possible >> a responsible dialogue about substantive issues. For example, although I >> haven't searched for the passage that you cite in your message, just >> based on that quote in isolation, one could argue that your criticism of >> this statement is based on a misreading: it doesn't seem to me that >> Brotherston is claiming that "the Aztecs contrived their creation story >> so that one day in their 260 day ritual calendar would match the Spring >> Equinox of a year some 4700 years in the past." In the quote, he says >> that it "incidentally coincides" with the spring equinox. Saying that it >> is incidental by definition means that it was not contrived. In >> isolation at least, Brotherston's statement merely seems to be pointing >> out the fact that the systematicity of the calendar has certain >> incidental effects that contribute to our understanding of its >> systematicity. In the larger context of the quote, maybe there would be >> more to say. In the case of the serpents and the numerical significance >> of their dots, I don't have an answer. Maybe you have a valid criticism >> there. This is precisely the point, which is that we can discuss these >> things and disagree about them in substantive terms rather than >> dismissing them out of hand. As I said before, I'm not claiming that >> Brotherston's work is flawless. Whose is? However, even if it is more >> fraught with error and/or speculation than other work in the field, that >> does not mean that it is pseudo-scholarship. >> >> Galen >> >> >> ANTHONY APPLEYARD wrote: >> > These two messages from this group: >> > From: brokaw at buffalo.edu at Mon, 21 Jan 2008 22:47:33 -0500 >> > From: bortiz at earthlink.net at Mon, 21 Jan 2008 18:27:01 -0500 (EST) >> > both with title >> > Re: [Nahuat-l] Aztec World Ages and the Calendar Stone >> > reached me as a random jumble of characters, e.g.: >> > "J‰žÉ櫱¨("Z('çi­ëmÉÉh±érjÐk¢Ø^(R)ËhžÃڊ{^t ('Ê 1ìbr†§uú. >> ÛajØ­r‰íj)Þv" >> > What mode were they input as? >> > >> > _______________________________________________ >> > Nahuatl mailing list >> > Nahuatl at lists.famsi.org >> > http://www.famsi.org/mailman/listinfo/nahuatl >> > >> > >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Nahuatl mailing list >> Nahuatl at lists.famsi.org >> http://www.famsi.org/mailman/listinfo/nahuatl >> >> > > > -- > Jeanne L. Gillespie, Ph.D. > Associate Dean > College of Arts and Letters > The University of Southern Mississippi > > 601-266-4315 > jeanne.gillespie at usm.edu > > > > -- > Jeanne L. Gillespie, Ph.D. > Associate Dean > College of Arts and Letters > The University of Southern Mississippi > > 601-266-4315 > jeanne.gillespie at usm.edu > _______________________________________________ > Nahuatl mailing list > Nahuatl at lists.famsi.org > http://www.famsi.org/mailman/listinfo/nahuatl > José Rabasa Chair and Professor Department of Spanish and Portuguese UC Berkeley Berkeley, CA 94720-2590 Tel. 510-642-2105 Fax. 510-642-6957 _______________________________________________ Nahuatl mailing list Nahuatl at lists.famsi.org http://www.famsi.org/mailman/listinfo/nahuatl From oudyk at hotmail.com Wed Jan 23 00:37:33 2008 From: oudyk at hotmail.com (Michel Oudijk) Date: Wed, 23 Jan 2008 00:37:33 +0000 Subject: Codes used for messages In-Reply-To: <47960215.4030006@buffalo.edu> Message-ID: Dear All, I see that I made some people angry and some others nervous. This afternoon I decided to write a refutation of Brotherston's passage. However, tuning into my inbox I see that two more people are angry and so I will first say something about their messages and then give you what I wrote this afternoon. (Ah, I don't know what happened to the font style) Dear Jeanne and Jos�, I'm sorry to have hurt your feelings as far as your maestro Brotherston goes. I didn't mean to do so but I simply don't agree with what he writes. I have no doubts that he's a nice man who inspires others and who generously opens his library or gives away material for others to study. It seems to me that the idea that Brotherston 'has been extremely influential among the international community of thinkers and analysts of Mesoamerican texts and their contexts.', is highly exagerated. I feel he has published some useful things but in my opinion 'The Fourth World' is not one of these. The fact that he has published books is of course not at all a sign of significance or even importance. H.B. Nicholson's highly significant book was not published for 50 years, Troike's work on the Codex Colombino has never been published, Hill Boone's work on the Magliabecchi has never seen the light. On the other hand do I have a long list of book that, in my opinion, do not deserve the paper they are printed on (I'm not gonna give you that list of course as I'm making enough enemies as it is). Nor does the fact that Brotherston refers to important theoreticians mean anything. I receive many thesis of students who refer to many more theoreticians than most of us can list and their thesis aren't better for it. I would almost say on the contrary. The point of my commentary was and is that I think Brotherston's passage shows a dubious way of working with the Mesoamerican sources. That such an opinion isn't popular is another matter. This is not a beauty contest and I know that quite a few people out there think I'm a .......... anyway (fill in whatever you want). And maybe I am. However, that is not the point. Our goal is to understand Mesoamerican culture and history and so we should try to do this using sound methodologies, solid research, and open discussion. Once you've read my commentary, please do discuss it with people like Umberger and Klein. Ask their honest opinion about the passage. Maybe, or better put, probably they won't be as blunt as I am, but I doubt it they will agree with Brotherston's analysis and conclusions. So here what I wrote this afternoon: As I was foolish enough to respond to the initial message of Carl, I suppose I should argue my point. I do agree with Galen that in any academic discussion argumentation is the foundation of any progress we can make. Thing is that we often simply ignore what we think is outrageous cause we don�t want to waste our time with things that we think are not worth it. That is basically my opinion as far as Brotherston�s Fourth World goes: I don�t think it�s worth discussing it, cause it�s so far out that it would take two books to refute that one book. I, and others, simply don�t want to take that time cause we have other things to do than refuting other people's work. Furthermore, it's not very popular to speak your mind if it's not favorable. You make many enemies cause what is supposed to be an academic discussion is taken personally even though your argumentation is totally academic. The point of discussion is this one passage in Brotherston's book, but there are many, many more that I could pick. One thinks that others probably see what you see, well, turns out that this is not the case and since I was foolish enough to get caught in a silly discussion I better sing it out. I have to say that I only have the Spanish edition of the Fourth World (La Am�rica ind�gena en su literatura: Los libros del cuarto mundo, Fondo de Cultura Econ�mico, Mexico, 1997). So I will be as precise as I can as to the references to everybody can follow the discourse. So let�s look at Brotherston�s passage (pp 374-375, cap. XII, Escala Cronol�gica): "Just as the Era Four Ollin visually frames the proceeding four world ages at the center of the sunstone, so its length is recorded on the rim as we saw, in ten lots of ten Rounds I don�t have a clue as to why Brotherston would read these �squared scales� as 10 lots of 10 rounds. But let's consider this a disagreement of interpretation. He clearly reads the 'squared scales' as bundles of years (xiuhmolpilli) and thus each square would represent 52 years. Then he counts the 10 dots in each square as a xiuhmolpilli arriving at 10 x 520 years. However, there aren't 10 xiuhmolpilli!!! There are at least 12 and I expect that 13 is meant. After the knot in the tail there is another xiuhmolpilli, and the leg and claw near the head covers another xiuhmolpilli yet clearly visible. So if these squares are actually xiuhmolpilli, we would have at least 6240 years and probably 6760. This, of course, does not at all agree with B.'s Era of 5200 years and therefore tears his 'model' down. But let's look at where B. got this 5200 year period from. He first mentions it on page 156 (chap. IV, La era) where he wants to prove the existence of such a period in Mesoamerica: �El testimonio m�s antiguo que se conserve sobre la dataci�n de la Era en Mesoam�rica puede encontrarse en inscripciones olmecas, que se colocan por la edad de Cristo, contando unidades de tiempo a partir del a�o 3113 a.C. (figura IV.7)� There is not one piece of evidence that relates any Olmec year with 3113 a.C. and obviously B. does not give any references. For one thing, it would imply that the Olmec used a Long Count, which is not at all known. B.'s figure is a list of years/chronology constructed from information in the �Anales de Tepexic� which is better known as the Codex Vindobonensis. These years are totally unacceptable and no scholar working with the Vindobonensis or any other Mixtec pictorial even refers to B.�s chronology simply because they don�t want to get into a useless discussion (or like Galen said, you rather ignore them if you don't believe in them). See Anders, Jansen & P�rez Jim�nez (1992) or Furst (1978) for two of the main commentaries of the Vindobonensis. Then B. explains the Maya calendar saying the Maya adopted the calendar from the Olmec, another unproven statement and without any reference. B. continues: �Por su estructura misma, este calendario tun de las tierras bajas genera una Era de trece baktunes, lo que movi� a algunos estudiosos a anunciar una fecha final en 2012 d.C., E.M. 13.0.0, 5200 (o 13 x 400) tunes a partir de 3113 a.C. De especial inter�s es el testimonio del Libro de Chilam Balam de Tizimin, el cual da informes sobre la reforma calend�rica del siglo XVIII que condujo a una aproximaci�n general entre el tun y el a�o solar de los cristianos. Aqu�, la fecha final calculada es 2088 d.C.: 5200 a�os solares, no 5200 tunes, a aprtir de 3113 a.C� The Maya Long Count does not have 3113 a.C. as its beginning but rather August 11, 3114 a.C. which obviously doesn�t agree with B�s suggested Olmec year which is probably why he made this �mistake�. This period of 5200 years and particularly the end of it, is based on the works of Jos� Arg�elles, the well known New Age guru and founder of the Planet Art Network organization. Anybody who would like to know more about him can google him and have access to multiple pages. No serious Mayanist however takes him, his 5200 year Era, or his prophecies seriously. The reference to the Chilam Balam of Tizimin is vague. There is no page or folio number, nothing. This is a major problem in the whole of the 'Fourth World' where the historical sources are used without any kind of reference, basically making virtually impossible to verify the statements. In this particular case I cannot check B. on his date. So let's continue the text: "Este mismo periodo de 5200 a�os se atribuye al actual Sol o Era en la tradici�n ic�nica, calculado como 13 tzontli (400) de a�os. o como 100 Ruedas de 52 a�os. Como 100 Ruedas aparece en la Piedra del Sol de Tenochtitlan, y fue transcrito a las historias nahuas de Cuauhtitlan y de Chalco (la fuente de Chimalpahin, y despu�s de Boturini), mientras que el Manuscrito de las Pinturas habla de un medio Sol, medido aproximadamente como 50 Ruedas (2600 a�os) en esa fuente y en la Leyenda de los Soles." We have established that the 100 Rounds don't exist in the Sun Stone. The consequence of the non-existence of the 100 Rounds makes the suggestion that half a sun would be 50 rounds, and consequently 2600 years, invalid. The references to the Anales de Cuauhtitlan and Chimalpahin are more than vague and I simply can't check them. "En el cap�tulo inicial del C�dice R�os, aparece como 13 unidades de turquesa peludas (con tzontli = 400) que son cuidadosamente interpretadas como de quattro centi anni por el copista italiano (v�ase figura XII.4b). Al hacer coincidir en a�os el periodo jerogl�fico de 5200 tunes, los textos ic�nicos tambi�n se remiten a la misma fecha b�sica, se�alada por Chimalpahin en fechas cercanas a 3000 a.C. (S�ptima Relaci�n), y declarada con precisi�n en la Piedra del Sol y en los Anales de Tepexic como el a�o 13 Ca�a (3113 a.C.)" B. refers here to folio 7r C�dice Vaticano A, also known as the Codex R�os. Here is represented the era of Xochiquetzal which in this Codex is considered to be the fourth era or Sun but other sources give other information (see the Leyenda de los Soles, Anales de Cuauhtitlan, the Histoyre du Mechique, and the Historia de los mexicanos por su pinturas). Here we indeed see 13 xihuitl or years with tzontli which mean 400. This would be an example of a 5200 years period were it not that B. forgot to count the 6 dots above these xihuitl which means the page depicts 5206 years. Curiously the Italian text refers to 5042 years. So again there is no evidence for a 5200 years period. The other three eras registered in the Vaticano A don't help much either as they are 4008, 4010, and 5004 years respectively. Again B. turns to Chimalpahin and this time with what may be considered a reference: the 7th Relaci�n. Again no page nor folio and so we're lost again, particularly since the 7th is the longest of the 8 relaciones. It may be clear by now that the fact that the Sun Stone or the Vindobonensis give the year 13-Reed is no evidence whatsoever of a year 3113 (which should be 3114). After all, if there is no 5200 year period the year 13-Reed may refer to any 13-Reed year from 1479 counting backwards. "imaged as cloud-snakes that issue from the squared scales of sky dragons to right and left. Now as we noted above, the heads peering from the dragons' maws below belong respectively to Fire Lord (left) and the Sun (right), who are One and Four in the set of thirteen Heroes." Whether these serpents are fire-serpents or cloud-serpents is a minor detail considering what is yet to come and so I will not detain myself on this point. The heads in the maws of the serpents are indeed Xiuhtecuhtli, the God of Fire, and Tonatiuh, the Sun. In the Codex Borbonicus and the Histoyre� these two gods are in the 1st and 4th position in a list of gods associated with the 13 numerals but I don't know where the name of the 'thirteen Heroes' comes from. "Hence, each endows its dragon and the Rounds on its back with number value, a capacity they and others among them display, for example, in the Pinturas transcription of the world-age story. As One, Fire Lord simply confirms the 5,200-year total; as Four, Sun multiples it to 20,800 to the remaining four-fifths of the Great Year [26,000 years]. Hence: 1x10x10x52=5,2004x10x10x52=20,800 26,000" This is where the numerology starts. B. seems to think that since Xiuhtecuhtli and Tonatiuh are in the 1st and 4th position of the somewhat obscure list of the lord of the numerals, he can now multiply the years supposedly represented in the 'squared scales' by their position. How does this work methodologically? Which source gives us the information that we can do so? B. again gives a vague reference to justify his actions: "the Pinturas transcription of the world-age story". Of course, this is not a reference nor any justification for doing such tricks with the Mesoamerican sources. "In the Cuauhtitlan Annals transcription of the Sunstone cosmogony, the four-fifths of the Great Year is noted as "CCCCC mixcoa," that is, four hundred cloud-snake rounds." The same story here: no reference, no context. Nothing!! In any academic discourse one has to give his sources and make logical steps in any analysis. Brotherston is far from it. That's all folks, Michel Anders, Ferdinand; Maarten Jansen & Gabina Aurora P�rez Jim�nez Origen e historia de los reyes mixtecos. Libro explicativo del llamado C�dice Vindobonensis. Sociedad Estatal Quinto Centenario/ADEVA/Fondo de Cultura Econ�mica, Madrid/Graz/Mexico, 1992 Furst, Jill Codex Vindobonensis Mexicanus I: A Commentary. Institute of Mesoamerican Studies, SUNY, Albany, 1978. > Date: Tue, 22 Jan 2008 09:47:49 -0500> From: brokaw at buffalo.edu> To: a.appleyard at btinternet.com> CC: nahuatl at lists.famsi.org> Subject: Re: [Nahuat-l] Codes used for messages> > Evidently both Bernard's post and my response were unreadable. I think > Bernard accidentally reposted his message to Aztlan. I reposted mine > again in response to his before I realized that it was going to Aztlan. > I'll repost it here for anyone who is not subscribed to Aztlan:> > My main point here has to do with the way in which one engages in > scholarly debate, not with the accuracy of Brotherston's work. Of > course, the burden of proof of any given argument is on the claimant, > but that includes the claimant who wishes to refute someone else's > argument. Of course, such refutations can be made on both substantive > and methodological grounds. It is perfectly legitimate to point out > logical or methodological flaws that invalidate an argument, as Bernard > seems to do. My point is that you can't just dismiss someone's work by > merely asserting that it is fantasy. Bernard, it seems to me that your > criticism engages with Brotherston's work in a perfectly legitimate way, > and I have no problem with that. This type of engagement makes possible > a responsible dialogue about substantive issues. For example, although I > haven't searched for the passage that you cite in your message, just > based on that quote in isolation, one could argue that your criticism of > this statement is based on a misreading: it doesn't seem to me that > Brotherston is claiming that "the Aztecs contrived their creation story > so that one day in their 260 day ritual calendar would match the Spring > Equinox of a year some 4700 years in the past." In the quote, he says > that it "incidentally coincides" with the spring equinox. Saying that it > is incidental by definition means that it was not contrived. In > isolation at least, Brotherston's statement merely seems to be pointing > out the fact that the systematicity of the calendar has certain > incidental effects that contribute to our understanding of its > systematicity. In the larger context of the quote, maybe there would be > more to say. In the case of the serpents and the numerical significance > of their dots, I don't have an answer. Maybe you have a valid criticism > there. This is precisely the point, which is that we can discuss these > things and disagree about them in substantive terms rather than > dismissing them out of hand. As I said before, I'm not claiming that > Brotherston's work is flawless. Whose is? However, even if it is more > fraught with error and/or speculation than other work in the field, that > does not mean that it is pseudo-scholarship.> > Galen> > > ANTHONY APPLEYARD wrote:> > These two messages from this group:> > From: brokaw at buffalo.edu at Mon, 21 Jan 2008 22:47:33 -0500> > From: bortiz at earthlink.net at Mon, 21 Jan 2008 18:27:01 -0500 (EST)> > both with title> > Re: [Nahuat-l] Aztec World Ages and the Calendar Stone> > reached me as a random jumble of characters, e.g.:> > "J���櫱�("Z(��i��m��h��rj�k��^��h��ڊ{^t(��1�br��u�.��ajحr��j)�v"> > What mode were they input as?> > > > _______________________________________________> > Nahuatl mailing list> > Nahuatl at lists.famsi.org> > http://www.famsi.org/mailman/listinfo/nahuatl> > > > > _________________________________________________________________ Express yourself instantly with MSN Messenger! Download today it's FREE! http://messenger.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200471ave/direct/01/ -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- _______________________________________________ Nahuatl mailing list Nahuatl at lists.famsi.org http://www.famsi.org/mailman/listinfo/nahuatl From brokaw at buffalo.edu Wed Jan 23 03:18:54 2008 From: brokaw at buffalo.edu (brokaw at buffalo.edu) Date: Tue, 22 Jan 2008 22:18:54 -0500 Subject: Codes used for messages In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Michel, First, let me just say that I don't think that you have made anyone angry or nervous. And I certainly don't think that you have made any enemies here. As I said in my message, I have nothing personal against you, and I think that I know Jeanne and Jose well enough to say that they don't either. I don't think anybody will have a personal problem with the kind of criticism that you direct at the passage from Brotherston's book in your post below. This is the kind of substantive critique that we all expect and appreciate, and I don't think Jeanne or Jose, or any other serious scholar, will hold anything against you for it merely because of their personal friendship with Gordon. So, peace and love all around :-), Galen Quoting Michel Oudijk : > > Dear All, > > I see that I made some people angry and some others nervous. This > afternoon> I decided to write a refutation of Brotherston's passage. However, > tuning > into my inbox I see that two more people are angry and so I will > first say > something about their messages and then give you what I wrote this > afternoo> n. > (Ah, I don't know what happened to the font style) > > Dear Jeanne and José, > > I'm sorry to have hurt your feelings as far as your maestro > Brotherston goe> s. I didn't mean to do so but I simply don't agree with what he > writes. I h> ave no doubts that he's a nice man who inspires others and who > generously o> pens his library or gives away material for others to study. It seems > to me> that the idea that Brotherston 'has been extremely influential among > the i> nternational community of thinkers and analysts of Mesoamerican texts > and t> heir contexts.', is highly exagerated. I feel he has published some > useful > things but in my opinion 'The Fourth World' is not one of these. The > fact t> hat he has published books is of course not at all a sign of > significance o> r even importance. H.B. Nicholson's highly significant book was not > publish> ed for 50 years, Troike's work on the Codex Colombino has never been > publis> hed, Hill Boone's work on the Magliabecchi has never seen the light. > On the> other hand do I have a long list of book that, in my opinion, do not > deser> ve the paper they are printed on (I'm not gonna give you that list of > cours> e as I'm making enough enemies as it is). Nor does the fact that > Brothersto> n refers to important theoreticians mean anything. I receive many > thesis of> students who refer to many more theoreticians than most of us can > list and> their thesis aren't better for it. I would almost say on the > contrary. > The point of my commentary was and is that I think Brotherston's > passage sh> ows a dubious way of working with the Mesoamerican sources. That such > an op> inion isn't popular is another matter. This is not a beauty contest > and I k> now that quite a few people out there think I'm a .......... anyway > (fill i> n whatever you want). And maybe I am. However, that is not the point. > Our g> oal is to understand Mesoamerican culture and history and so we > should try > to do this using sound methodologies, solid research, and open > discussion. > Once you've read my commentary, please do discuss it with people like > Umber> ger and Klein. Ask their honest opinion about the passage. Maybe, or > better> put, probably they won't be as blunt as I am, but I doubt it they > will agr> ee with Brotherston's analysis and conclusions. > > So here what I wrote this afternoon: > > As I was foolish enough to respond to the initial message of Carl, I > suppos> e I should argue my point. I do agree with Galen that in any academic > discu> ssion argumentation is the foundation of any progress we can make. > Thing is> that we often simply ignore what we think is outrageous cause we > don’t w> ant to waste our time with things that we think are not worth it. > That is b> asically my opinion as far as Brotherston’s Fourth World goes: I > don’t > think it’s worth discussing it, cause it’s so far out that it > would tak> e two books to refute that one book. I, and others, simply don’t > want to > take that time cause we have other things to do than refuting other > people'> s work. Furthermore, it's not very popular to speak your mind if it's > not f> avorable. You make many enemies cause what is supposed to be an > academic di> scussion is taken personally even though your argumentation is > totally acad> emic. > The point of discussion is this one passage in Brotherston's book, > but ther> e are many, many more that I could pick. One thinks that others > probably se> e what you see, well, turns out that this is not the case and since I > was f> oolish enough to get caught in a silly discussion I better sing it > out. > > I have to say that I only have the Spanish edition of the Fourth > World (La > América indígena en su literatura: Los libros del cuarto mundo, > Fondo d> e Cultura Económico, Mexico, 1997). So I will be as precise as I > can as t> o the references to everybody can follow the discourse. > > So let’s look at Brotherston’s passage (pp 374-375, cap. XII, > Escala Cr> onológica): > > "Just as the Era Four Ollin visually frames the proceeding four world > ages> at the center of the sunstone, so its length is recorded on the rim > as we > saw, in ten lots of ten Rounds > > I don’t have a clue as to why Brotherston would read these > ‘squared sca> les’ as 10 lots of 10 rounds. But let's consider this a > disagreement of i> nterpretation. He clearly reads the 'squared scales' as bundles of > years (x> iuhmolpilli) and thus each square would represent 52 years. Then he > counts > the 10 dots in each square as a xiuhmolpilli arriving at 10 x 520 > years. Ho> wever, there aren't 10 xiuhmolpilli!!! There are at least 12 and I > expect t> hat 13 is meant. After the knot in the tail there is another > xiuhmolpilli, > and the leg and claw near the head covers another xiuhmolpilli yet > clearly > visible. So if these squares are actually xiuhmolpilli, we would have > at le> ast 6240 years and probably 6760. This, of course, does not at all > agree wi> th B.'s Era of 5200 years and therefore tears his 'model' down. > But let's look at where B. got this 5200 year period from. He first > mention> s it on page 156 (chap. IV, La era) where he wants to prove the > existence o> f such a period in Mesoamerica: > > “El testimonio más antiguo que se conserve sobre la datación de > la Er> a en Mesoamérica puede encontrarse en inscripciones olmecas, que se > coloc> an por la edad de Cristo, contando unidades de tiempo a partir del > año 31> 13 a.C. (figura IV.7)” > > There is not one piece of evidence that relates any Olmec year with > 3113 a.> C. and obviously B. does not give any references. For one thing, it > would i> mply that the Olmec used a Long Count, which is not at all known. > B.'s figu> re is a list of years/chronology constructed from information in the > ‘Ana> les de Tepexic’ which is better known as the Codex Vindobonensis. > These y> ears are totally unacceptable and no scholar working with the > Vindobonensis> or any other Mixtec pictorial even refers to B.’s chronology > simply beca> use they don’t want to get into a useless discussion (or like Galen > said,> you rather ignore them if you don't believe in them). See Anders, > Jansen &> Pérez Jiménez (1992) or Furst (1978) for two of the main > commentaries > of the Vindobonensis. > Then B. explains the Maya calendar saying the Maya adopted the > calendar fro> m the Olmec, another unproven statement and without any reference. B. > conti> nues: > > “Por su estructura misma, este calendario tun de las tierras bajas > genera> una Era de trece baktunes, lo que movió a algunos estudiosos a > anunciar > una fecha final en 2012 d.C., E.M. 13.0.0, 5200 (o 13 x 400) tunes a > partir> de 3113 a.C. De especial interés es el testimonio del Libro de > Chilam Ba> lam de Tizimin, el cual da informes sobre la reforma calendárica > del sigl> o XVIII que condujo a una aproximación general entre el tun y el > año so> lar de los cristianos. Aquí, la fecha final calculada es 2088 d.C.: > 5200 > años solares, no 5200 tunes, a aprtir de 3113 a.C” > > The Maya Long Count does not have 3113 a.C. as its beginning but > rather Aug> ust 11, 3114 a.C. which obviously doesn’t agree with B’s > suggested Olme> c year which is probably why he made this ‘mistake’. This period > of 520> 0 years and particularly the end of it, is based on the works of > José Arg> üelles, the well known New Age guru and founder of the Planet Art > Network> organization. Anybody who would like to know more about him can > google him> and have access to multiple pages. No serious Mayanist however takes > him, > his 5200 year Era, or his prophecies seriously. > The reference to the Chilam Balam of Tizimin is vague. There is no > page or > folio number, nothing. This is a major problem in the whole of the > 'Fourth > World' where the historical sources are used without any kind of > reference,> basically making virtually impossible to verify the statements. In > this pa> rticular case I cannot check B. on his date. > So let's continue the text: > > "Este mismo periodo de 5200 años se atribuye al actual Sol o Era en > la tr> adición icónica, calculado como 13 tzontli (400) de años. o > como 100 > Ruedas de 52 años. Como 100 Ruedas aparece en la Piedra del Sol de > Tenoch> titlan, y fue transcrito a las historias nahuas de Cuauhtitlan y de > Chalco > (la fuente de Chimalpahin, y después de Boturini), mientras que el > Manusc> rito de las Pinturas habla de un medio Sol, medido aproximadamente > como 50 > Ruedas (2600 años) en esa fuente y en la Leyenda de los Soles." > > We have established that the 100 Rounds don't exist in the Sun Stone. > The c> onsequence of the non-existence of the 100 Rounds makes the > suggestion that> half a sun would be 50 rounds, and consequently 2600 years, invalid. > The r> eferences to the Anales de Cuauhtitlan and Chimalpahin are more than > vague > and I simply can't check them. > > "En el capítulo inicial del Códice Ríos, aparece como 13 > unidades de > turquesa peludas (con tzontli > interpretadas> como de quattro centi anni por el copista italiano (véase figura > XII.4b)> . Al hacer coincidir en años el periodo jeroglífico de 5200 > tunes, los > textos icónicos también se remiten a la misma fecha básica, > señalad> a por Chimalpahin en fechas cercanas a 3000 a.C. (Séptima > Relación), y > declarada con precisión en la Piedra del Sol y en los Anales de > Tepexic c> omo el año 13 Caña (3113 a.C.)" > > B. refers here to folio 7r Códice Vaticano A, also known as the > Codex R> íos. Here is represented the era of Xochiquetzal which in this > Codex is c> onsidered to be the fourth era or Sun but other sources give other > informat> ion (see the Leyenda de los Soles, Anales de Cuauhtitlan, the > Histoyre du M> echique, and the Historia de los mexicanos por su pinturas). Here we > indeed> see 13 xihuitl or years with tzontli which mean 400. This would be > an exam> ple of a 5200 years period were it not that B. forgot to count the 6 > dots a> bove these xihuitl which means the page depicts 5206 years. Curiously > the I> talian text refers to 5042 years. So again there is no evidence for a > 5200 > years period. The other three eras registered in the Vaticano A don't > help > much either as they are 4008, 4010, and 5004 years respectively. > Again B. t> urns to Chimalpahin and this time with what may be considered a > reference: > the 7th Relación. Again no page nor folio and so we're lost again, > partic> ularly since the 7th is the longest of the 8 relaciones. It may be > clear by> now that the fact that the Sun Stone or the Vindobonensis give the > year 13> -Reed is no evidence whatsoever of a year 3113 (which should be > 3114). Afte> r all, if there is no 5200 year period the year 13-Reed may refer to > any 13> -Reed year from 1479 counting backwards. > > "imaged as cloud-snakes that issue from the squared scales of sky > dragons t> o right and left. Now as we noted above, the heads peering from the > dragons> ' maws below belong respectively to Fire Lord (left) and the Sun > (right), w> ho are One and Four in the set of thirteen Heroes." > > Whether these serpents are fire-serpents or cloud-serpents is a minor > detai> l considering what is yet to come and so I will not detain myself on > this p> oint. The heads in the maws of the serpents are indeed Xiuhtecuhtli, > the Go> d of Fire, and Tonatiuh, the Sun. In the Codex Borbonicus and the > Histoyre> these two gods are in the 1st and 4th position in a list of gods > associ> ated with the 13 numerals but I don't know where the name of the > 'thirteen > Heroes' comes from. > > "Hence, each endows its dragon and the Rounds on its back with number > value> , a capacity they and others among them display, for example, in the > Pintur> as transcription of the world-age story. As One, Fire Lord simply > confirms > the 5,200-year total; as Four, Sun multiples it to 20,800 to the > remaining > four-fifths of the Great Year [26,000 years]. Hence: > 1x10x10x52R004x10x10x52 ,800 26,000" > This is where the numerology starts. B. seems to think that since > Xiuhtecuh> tli and Tonatiuh are in the 1st and 4th position of the somewhat > obscure li> st of the lord of the numerals, he can now multiply the years > supposedly re> presented in the 'squared scales' by their position. How does this > work met> hodologically? Which source gives us the information that we can do > so? B. > again gives a vague reference to justify his actions: "the Pinturas > transcr> iption of the world-age story". Of course, this is not a reference > nor any > justification for doing such tricks with the Mesoamerican sources. > "In the Cuauhtitlan Annals transcription of the Sunstone cosmogony, > the fo> ur-fifths of the Great Year is noted as "CCCCC mixcoa," that is, four > hund> red cloud-snake rounds." > > The same story here: no reference, no context. Nothing!! In any > academic di> scourse one has to give his sources and make logical steps in any > analysis.> Brotherston is far from it. > > > That's all folks, > > Michel > > > > > Anders, Ferdinand; Maarten Jansen & Gabina Aurora Pérez Jiménez > Origen e historia de los reyes mixtecos. Libro explicativo del > llamado Có> dice Vindobonensis. Sociedad Estatal Quinto Centenario/ADEVA/Fondo de > Cultu> ra Económica, Madrid/Graz/Mexico, 1992 > > Furst, Jill > Codex Vindobonensis Mexicanus I: A Commentary. Institute of > Mesoamerican St> udies, SUNY, Albany, 1978. > > > Date: Tue, 22 Jan 2008 09:47:49 -0500> From: brokaw at buffalo.edu> > To: a.ap> pleyard at btinternet.com> CC: nahuatl at lists.famsi.org> Subject: Re: > [Nahuat-l> ] Codes used for messages> > Evidently both Bernard's post and my > response > were unreadable. I think > Bernard accidentally reposted his message > to Azt> lan. I reposted mine > again in response to his before I realized > that it w> as going to Aztlan. > I'll repost it here for anyone who is not > subscribed > to Aztlan:> > My main point here has to do with the way in which one > engage> s in > scholarly debate, not with the accuracy of Brotherston's work. > Of > > course, the burden of proof of any given argument is on the claimant, > > but> that includes the claimant who wishes to refute someone else's > > argument.> Of course, such refutations can be made on both substantive > and > methodol> ogical grounds. It is perfectly legitimate to point out > logical or > method> ological flaws that invalidate an argument, as Bernard > seems to do. > My po> int is that you can't just dismiss someone's work by > merely > asserting tha> t it is fantasy. Bernard, it seems to me that your > criticism > engages with> Brotherston's work in a perfectly legitimate way, > and I have no > problem > with that. This type of engagement makes possible > a responsible > dialogue > about substantive issues. For example, although I > haven't searched > for th> e passage that you cite in your message, just > based on that quote > in isol> ation, one could argue that your criticism of > this statement is > based on > a misreading: it doesn't seem to me that > Brotherston is claiming > that "th> e Aztecs contrived their creation story > so that one day in their > 260 day > ritual calendar would match the Spring > Equinox of a year some 4700 > years > in the past." In the quote, he says > that it "incidentally > coincides" with> the spring equinox. Saying that it > is incidental by definition > means tha> t it was not contrived. In > isolation at least, Brotherston's > statement me> rely seems to be pointing > out the fact that the systematicity of > the cale> ndar has certain > incidental effects that contribute to our > understanding > of its > systematicity. In the larger context of the quote, maybe > there wou> ld be > more to say. In the case of the serpents and the numerical > signific> ance > of their dots, I don't have an answer. Maybe you have a valid > critic> ism > there. This is precisely the point, which is that we can > discuss thes> e > things and disagree about them in substantive terms rather than > > dismi> ssing them out of hand. As I said before, I'm not claiming that > > Brotherst> on's work is flawless. Whose is? However, even if it is more > > fraught with> error and/or speculation than other work in the field, that > does > not mea> n that it is pseudo-scholarship.> > Galen> > > ANTHONY APPLEYARD > wrote:> > > These two messages from this group:> > From: brokaw at buffalo.edu at > Mon, 21 > Jan 2008 22:47:33 -0500> > From: bortiz at earthlink.net at Mon, 21 Jan > 2008 1> 8:27:01 -0500 (EST)> > both with title> > Re: [Nahuat-l] Aztec World > Ages a> nd the Calendar Stone> > reached me as a random jumble of characters, > e.g.:> > > > "J‰žÉ櫱¨("Z(‘çi­ëmÉÉh±érjÐk¢Ø^®> ËhžÃڊ{^t(’Ê1ìbr†§uú.ÛajØ­r‰íj)Þ> v"> > What mode were they input as?> > > > > ________________________________> _______________> > Nahuatl mailing list> > Nahuatl at lists.famsi.org> > > http:> //www.famsi.org/mailman/listinfo/nahuatl> > > > > > _________________________________________________________________ > Express yourself instantly with MSN Messenger! Download today it's > FREE! > http://messenger.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200471ave/direct/01/> _______________________________________________ Nahuatl mailing list Nahuatl at lists.famsi.org http://www.famsi.org/mailman/listinfo/nahuatl From arnibionic at yahoo.de Wed Jan 23 12:26:58 2008 From: arnibionic at yahoo.de (=?iso-8859-1?q?Arnd=20S=F6lling?=) Date: Wed, 23 Jan 2008 13:26:58 +0100 Subject: Incorporation in Nahua Dialects Message-ID: Listeros, I'm researching on the Nahua Dialects and my interest is about noun incorporation as in the hierarchy established 1984: The Evolution of Noun Incorporation by Marianne Mithun. I've read in Hill, J. & K. 1986: Speaking Mexicano that productive incorporation is active in the peripheral dialects like the Huasteca area, whereas in the central dialects such as in Puebla (called Malinche Mexicano by the authors) incorporation only appears fossilized. My question would now be if anyone knows about a dialect that lies in between those two extremes; maybe a dialect that only uses lexical compounding but no more generically referring constructions (as in Mithun's Type III); or one that uses a classificatory incorporating system (Type IV) but no referring one... Many thanks in advance, Arnd Sölling --------------------------------- Ihr erstes Baby? Holen Sie sich Tipps von anderen Eltern. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- _______________________________________________ Nahuatl mailing list Nahuatl at lists.famsi.org http://www.famsi.org/mailman/listinfo/nahuatl From arnibionic at yahoo.de Wed Jan 23 12:35:55 2008 From: arnibionic at yahoo.de (=?iso-8859-1?q?Arnd=20S=F6lling?=) Date: Wed, 23 Jan 2008 13:35:55 +0100 Subject: Incorporation in Nahua Dialects Message-ID: Listeros, I'm researching on the Nahua Dialects and my interest is about noun incorporation as in the hierarchy established 1984: The Evolution of Noun Incorporation by Marianne Mithun. I've read in Hill, J. & K. 1986: Speaking Mexicano that productive incorporation is active in the peripheral dialects like the Huasteca area, whereas in the central dialects such as in Puebla (called Malinche Mexicano by the authors) incorporation only appears fossilized. My question would now be if anyone knows about a dialect that lies in between those two extremes; maybe a dialect that only uses lexical compounding but no more generically referring constructions (as in Mithun's Type III); or one that uses a classificatory incorporating system (Type IV) but no referring one... Many thanks in advance, Arnd Sölling --------------------------------- Ihr erstes Fernweh? Wo gibt es den schönsten Strand. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- _______________________________________________ Nahuatl mailing list Nahuatl at lists.famsi.org http://www.famsi.org/mailman/listinfo/nahuatl From idiez at mac.com Thu Jan 24 00:37:16 2008 From: idiez at mac.com (John Sullivan, Ph.D.) Date: Wed, 23 Jan 2008 18:37:16 -0600 Subject: 2008 Summer Nahuatl Program in Zacatecas/Veracruz Message-ID: Listeros, I am happy to announce our Summer 2008 "Intensive course in Older and Modern Nahuatl for non-native speakers" (June 23 to August 1). The course description appears below in English and Spanish and can be downloaded at http://www.idiez.org.mx and http://www.macehualli.org John John Sullivan, Ph.D. Professor of Nahua language and culture Universidad Autónoma de Zacatecas Zacatecas Institute of Teaching and Research in Ethnology Tacuba 152, int. 47 Centro Histórico Zacatecas, Zac. 98000 Mexico Work: +52 (492) 925-3415 Fax: +52 (492) 925-3416 Home: +52 (492) 768-6048 Mobile: +52 (492) 118-0854 idiez at mac.com www.idiez.org.mx Macehualli Educational Research the Zacatecas Institute for Teaching and Research in Ethnology, and the Language Center of the Universidad Autónoma de Zacatecas Intensive course in Older and Modern Nahuatl for non-native speakers Summer 2008 (June 23 to August 1) Instructors: John Sullivan, Ph.D., Lic. Delfina de la Cruz, and indigenous teaching assistants. General objectives 1. Develop students' oral comprehension, speaking, reading, writing, knowledge of language structure, as well as their cultural wisdom and sensibility, in order to facilitate their ability to communicate effectively, correctly and creatively in everyday situations. 2. Provide students with instruments and experiences which demonstrate the continuity between past and present Nahua culture, through the study of colonial and modern texts, conversation with native speakers, and a residency in a Nahua community. 3. Penetrate into the historical, economic, political, social and cultural aspects of Nahua civilization. 4. Prepare students to take university level humanities courses taught in Nahuatl alongside native speakers. 5. Provide students the opportunity to work on a research project in collaboration with one or more native speakers of Nahuatl. Registration requirements: 1. Copy of birth certificate or CURP for Mexicans. Copy of passport for foreigners (student visa is not necessary). 2. two credential-size photographs Academic credit: Academic credit for 140 hours is issued in the form of an official transcript through the Language Center of the Universidad Autónoma de Zacatecas. Testing: 1. Beginning students' progress will be evaluated in three categories: 40%, three tests on Older Nahuatl (grammar and translation). 40%, three tests on Modern Nahuatl (oral comprehension, speech production, reading, writing, and grammar). 20%, research report. 2. Intermediate students' progress will be evaluated in three categories: 40%, three tests on Older Nahuatl (grammar, transcription, translation, and commentary). 40%, three tests on Modern Nahuatl (reading, writing, and grammar) 20%, research report. 3. Advanced students' will be evaluated based on their research paper written in Modern Nahuatl. Calendar and activities: There will be six weeks of work from June 23 to August 1, 2008, for a total of 142.5 hours. The academic activities will be distributed according to the following four components: 1. OLDER NAHUATL Students will meet two hours per day, five days per week during five weeks at the Institute in Zacatecas, in order to study Older Nahuatl. a). Students at the beginner's level will work on chapters one through eight of James Lockhart's Nahuatl as Written, and will translate some elementary selections of colonial texts. b). Students at the intermediate level will work on chapters nine through sixteen of James Lockhart's Nahuatl as Written, and will begin to transcribe, translate and comment colonial manuscripts. c). Students at the advanced level will work exclusively on the transcription, analysis and commentary of colonial manuscripts. Materials for the Older Nahuatl component: All students must have personal copies of the following texts: 1. Karttunen, Francis. 1983. An Analytical Dictionary of Nahuatl. Texas Linguistics Series. Austin: University of Texas Press. 2. Lockhart, James. 2001. Nahuatl as Written. Lessons in Older Written Nahuatl, with Copious Examples and Texts. Stanford: Stanford University Press. 3. Molina, Alonso de. 1977(1555-1571). Vocabulario en lengua castellana y mexicana y mexicana y castellana. Colección “Biblioteca Porrúa” 44. México: Porrúa. In addition, all students will receive, free of charge, exercise manuals, grammar charts and vocabulary lists, as well as photocopies and digitalized images of the manuscripts which will be studied. 2. MODERN NAHUATL Students will meet two and one half hours per day, five days per week during the first five weeks of the course, and one hour per day during the sixth week, in order to study Modern Nahuatl with a native- speaking professor. Beginning level: The first two weeks will entail an immersion experience, in which students will learn to converse in Nahuatl without the use of translations or grammar. This component is based on the early methodology of linguists Stephen Krashen and Tracy Terrell, and will conclude with a listening comprehension and oral production test. During a second two-week phase, students will continue with the previous conversation activities. In addition, they will be introduced to the writing system and the three basic grammatical structures: the noun, verb, and relational phrases. The grammar studies will be based on a series of charts and written exercises developed by the professors. This stage will conclude with a conversation exam and a written exam on the writing system and the grammar. During the final two-week period, students will begin to read Modern Nahuatl texts, emphasizing comprehension. A basic bilingual vocabulary prepared by the professors will be used, and the course will end with a reading comprehension test. Intermediate level: Durante the six weeks of the course, students will read, analyze and comment, both orally and in writing, diverse Modern Nahuatl texts. In addition, they will study some complex linguistic structures. Advanced level: Students will research, en collaboration with the Institute's professors, a topic of Nahua culture, basing their work on older written sources, or on modern sources, be they oral or written. They will write a short paper in modern Nahuatl on this topic. 3. INDIVIDUAL RESEARCH IN COLLABORATION WITH NATIVE SPEAKERS Each student will meet with a native speaker one hour per day during the five weeks in Zacatecas, in order to work on an individual research project dealing with some aspect of nahua language or culture. For this reason, and before being admitted to the program, each student will need to submit a proposal of the project they would like to work on. The personnel at IDIEZ will advise prospective students on this process before course registration. Students may propose individual or group research projects, including thesis and dissertation research, or they may participate in any of the projects in which IDIEZ is currently involved. For example, we are preparing the first monolingual dictionary of the Nahuatl language. All students will prepare and turn in a research report at the end of the course. 4. RESIDENCY IN THE HUASTECA REGION On Saturday, July 26, we will travel to Tepecxitla, Veracruz where we will remain until August 1. Each student will live with a Nahua family and participate in daily activities, including the preparation and execution of the Chicomexochitl ceremony. We will also continue with formal instruction in conversation, reading and writing in Modern Nahuatl. Cost: The cost of the program is: 1. US$2400 for tuition. 2. US$1100-1300 for transportation, room and board for six weeks. The difference depends on the room and board options during the five-week stay in Zacatecas. These include an individual or shared room in a hostal, and an individual room in a rented house shared with other students. 3. Not included are the Lockhart, Molina, and Karttunen texts, and the round trip between your point of origin and Zacatecas. 4. FLAS. Graduate students at U.S. universities may obtain FLAS funding for this course through their home academic institution. For more information, please contact: John Sullivan, Ph.D. Home phone: +52 (492) 768-6048 Tacuba 152, int. 47 Mobile: +52-492-118-0854 Colonia Centro Office: +52 (492) 925-3415 Zacatecas, Zac., 98000 Fax: +52 (492) 925-3416 México Email: macehuallier at mac.com idiez @mac.com http://www.macehualli.org http://www.idiez.org.mx Macehualli Educational Research, el Instituto de Docencia e Investigación Etnológica de Zacatecas, A.C., y el Centro de Idiomas de la Universidad Autónoma de Zacatecas Curso intensivo de náhuatl antiguo y moderno para no-nativohablantes Verano 2008 (del 23 de junio al primero de agosto) Instructores: El Dr. John Sullivan, la Lic. Delfina de la Cruz, y asistentes de cátedra indígenas. Objetivos generales 1. Desarrollar en los estudiantes la comprensión oral, el habla, la lectura, la escritura, el conocimiento de la estructura del idioma, y la sensibilidad cultural, para facilitar su capacidad de comunicación efectiva, correcta y creativa en situaciones de la vida cotidiana. 2. Proporcionar a los alumnos instrumentos y experiencias que evidencien la continuidad entre la cultura nahua del pasado y del presente, a través del estudio de textos coloniales y modernos, la conversación con nativohablantes y una estancia en una comunidad nahua. 3. Adentrar en los aspectos históricos, económicos, políticos, sociales y culturales de la civilización nahua. 4. Preparar a los estudiantes para cursar, junto con nativohablantes, materias en las humanidades a nivel universitario, impartidas en lengua náhuatl. 5. Proporcionar a los alumnos la oportunidad de desarrollar un proyecto de investigación en colaboración con uno o más nativohablantes de náhuatl. Requisitos de inscripción: 1. Copia del acta de nacimiento o del CURP para mexicanos. Copia del pasaporte para extranjeros (no es necesario obtener una visa de estudiante). 2. dos fotografías tamaño infantil Crédito académico: El curso será acreditado para un total de 140 horas con la emisión de una boleta oficial de calificaciones a través del Centro de Idiomas de la Universidad Autónoma de Zacatecas. Evaluación: 1. Se evaluará el desempeño de los estudiantes principiantes en base a tres categorías: 40%, tres pruebas de náhuatl antiguo (gramática y traducción) 40%, tres pruebas de náhuatl moderno (comprensión auditiva, producción oral, lectura, escritura, y gramática). 20%, reporte de investigación. 2. Se evaluará el desempeño de los estudiantes intermedios en base a tres categorías: 40%, tres pruebas de náhuatl antiguo (gramática, paleografía, traducción y comentario) 40%, tres pruebas de náhuatl moderno (lectura, escritura, y gramática). 20%, reporte de investigación. 3. Se evaluará el desempeño de los estudiantes avanzados en base a su trabajo escrito en náhuatl moderno. Calendario y actividades: Habrá seis semanas de trabajo del 23 de junio al 1 de agosto de 2008, para un total de 142.5 horas. Las actividades académicas estarán distribuidas de acuerdo a las siguientes cuatro componentes: 1. NAHUATL ANTIGUO Los alumnos se reunirán dos horas por día, cinco días por semana durante cinco semanas en las instalaciones del IDIEZ en Zacatecas para estudiar el náhuatl antiguo. a). Alumnos en el nivel principiante estudiarán las primeras ocho lecciones de Nahuatl as Written de James Lockhart, y traducirán algunas selecciones sencillas de textos coloniales. b) Alumnos en el nivel intermedio estudiarán las lecciones nueve a dieciseis del texto Nahuatl as Written de James Lockhart, y se iniciarán en la paleografía, traducción y comentario de manuscritos coloniales. c). Alumnos en el nivel avanzado se dedicarán exclusivamente a paleografiar, analizar y comentar manuscritos coloniales. Materiales para el curso de náhuatl antiguo: Todos los alumnos deberán contar con ejemplares personales de los siguientes textos: 1. Karttunen, Francis. 1983. An Analytical Dictionary of Nahuatl. Texas Linguistics Series. Austin: University of Texas Press. 2. Lockhart, James. 2001. Nahuatl as Written. Lessons in Older Written Nahuatl, with Copious Examples and Texts. Stanford: Stanford University Press. 3. Molina, Alonso de. 1977(1555-1571). Vocabulario en lengua castellana y mexicana y mexicana y castellana. Colección “Biblioteca Porrúa” 44. México: Porrúa. Además, todos los estudiantes recibirán, de manera gratuita, manuales de ejercicios, esquemas gramaticales y listas de vocabulario, así como fotocopias e imágenes digitalizadas de los manuscritos que vamos a estudiar. 2. NAHUATL MODERNO Los alumnos se reunirán dos horas y media por día, cinco días por semana durante las primeras cinco semanas del curso, y una hora por día durante la sexta semana para estudiar el náhuatl moderno con profesores nativohablantes. Nivel principiante: Las primeras dos semanas constituirán una etapa de inmersión, en la cual los alumnos aprenderán a conversar en náhuatl sin el auxilio de la traducción ni la gramática. Dicho componente está basado metodológicamente en el trabajo temprano de los lingüistas Stephen Krashen y Tracy Terrell. Esta fase terminará con un examen de comprensión auditiva y producción oral. En una segunda etapa de dos semanas, los estudiantes continuarán con las actividades de conversación. Además, se introducirá el sistema de escritura y las tres estructuras gramáticales básicas: las frases nominales, verbales y relacionales. Los estudios gramaticales se basarán en una serie de esquemas y ejercicios escritos desarollados por los profesores. Dicha fase terminará con un examen oral de conversación y un examen escrito sobre el sistema de escritura y la gramática. Durante la etapa final de dos semanas, los alumnos empezarán a leer textos en náhuatl moderno, enfatizando su comprensión. Se utilizará un vocabulario bilingüe básico preparado por los profesores. Se finalizará el curso con un examen escrito de comprensión de lectura. Nivel intermedio: Durante las seis semanas del curso, los alumnos leerán, analizarán y comentarán, tanto oralmente como por escrito, diversos textos en náhuatl moderno. Asimismo, estudiarán algunas estructuras lingüísticas complejas. Nivel avanzado: El alumno investigará, en colaboración con los profesores del Instituto, algún tema de la cultura nahua, basándose en fuentes escritas antiguas, o bien, en fuentes escritas u orales modernas. Elaborará un trabajo corto en lengua náhuatl sobre dicho tema. 3. INVESTIGACION INDIVIDUAL EN COLABORACION CON NATIVOHABLANTES Cada estudiante se reunirá con un nativohablante una hora por día durante las cinco semanas en Zacatecas para trabajar algún proyecto de investigación relacionado con la lengua o la cultura nahua. Para esto, será necesario que el alumno proponga, antes de ser aceptado al programa, un proyecto que desee implementar para dicho componente. El personal del IDIEZ proporcionará asesoría al respecto. Los alumnos pueden proponer proyectos de investigación individuales o colectivos, incluyendo investigación para tesis o disertación, o pueden integrarse a alguno de los proyectos que realiza IDIEZ actualmente. Por ejemplo, estamos preparando el primer diccionario monolingüe del náhuatl. Todos los estudiantes elaborarán y entregarán un reporte de su investigación al finalizar el curso. 4. ESTANCIA EN LA HUASTECA El sábado 26 de julio nos trasladaremos a Tepecxitla, Veracruz donde permaneceremos hasta el día primero de agosto. Cada estudiante vivirá con una familia nahua, y participará en sus actividades diarias, incluyendo la preparación y ejecución de la ceremonia, Chicomexochitl. Asímismo, continuaremos con la instrucción formal en conversación, lectura y escritura del náhuatl moderno. Costo: El costo del programa es: 1. US$2400 para colegiatura. 2. US$1100-1300 para transportación, comida y hospedaje por seis semanas. La diferencia depende de las opciones de hospedaje durante la estancia de cinco semanas en Zacatecas. Estas incluyen cuarto individual o compartido en un hostal, y cuarto individual en una casa rentada compartida con otros alumnos. 3. No están incluidos los textos de Lockhart, Molina, y Karttunen y el viaje redondo entre su punto de origen y Zacatecas. 4. FLAS. Estudiantes de posgrado en universidades norteamericanas pueden conseguir financiamiento de FLAS para este programa a través de su institución educativa de origen. Para más información, favor de comunicarse con: John Sullivan, Ph.D. Domicilio: +52 (492) 768-6048 Tacuba 152, int. 47 Celular: +52-492-118-0854 Colonia Centro Oficina: +52 (492) 925-3415 Zacatecas, Zac., 98000 Fax: +52 (492) 925-3416 México Correo electrónico: macehuallier at mac.com idiez @mac.com http:// www.macehualli.org http://www.idiez.org.mx -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: John Sullivan, Ph.D..vcf Type: text/directory Size: 33602 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- _______________________________________________ Nahuatl mailing list Nahuatl at lists.famsi.org http://www.famsi.org/mailman/listinfo/nahuatl From swood at uoregon.edu Thu Jan 10 21:35:34 2008 From: swood at uoregon.edu (Stephanie Wood) Date: Thu, 10 Jan 2008 13:35:34 -0800 Subject: announcement: NEH Summer Institute Message-ID: Please share this announcement (and please forgive any duplication): "From the Yucatan to 'the Halls of Montezuma' -- Mesoamerican Cultures and their Histories" NEH Summer Institute for Middle and High School Teachers to be held at the University of Oregon July 14 - August 8, 2008 Directors: Stephanie Wood and Judith Musick For further information: http://whp.uoregon.edu/MesoInstitute/ or email: swood at uoregon.edu Deadline for applications: March 3, 2008 This is a four-week summer institute for middle and high school faculty of history, art history, literature and Spanish selected from applicants around the United States. It is designed to facilitate the expanded integration of Mesoamerican cultural heritage materials ? new discoveries and the latest research interpreting the same -- into curricular units or lesson plans that will appeal to a variety of learners and bring greater multicultural depth and understanding into the classroom. The institute, sponsored in part by the University of Oregon's Wired Humanities Project (WHP), will also have an emphasis on multimedia. WHP hosts a number of electronic resources for students and scholars of Mesoamerica, including the Virtual Mesoamerican Archive, the online Nahuatl Vocabulary, and, coming soon, the Mapas Project, which is a digital collection of pictorial Mesoamerican manuscripts. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- _______________________________________________ Nahuatl mailing list Nahuatl at lists.famsi.org http://www.famsi.org/mailman/listinfo/nahuatl From sylvia at famsi.org Mon Jan 14 18:44:22 2008 From: sylvia at famsi.org (sylvia at famsi.org) Date: Mon, 14 Jan 2008 13:44:22 -0500 Subject: Proyecto Digitalizacion de Textos en Lenguas Mesoamericanas Message-ID: Mesoamericanistas, FAMSI se complace en anunciar: Proyecto Digitalizacion de Textos en Lenguas Mesoamericanas El Proyecto de Digitalizacion de Textos en Lenguas Mesoamericanas surgio del deseo de poner a disposicion de los eruditos, los estudiantes, y los interesados de todo el mundo, una seleccion de importantes documentos pertenecientes a la etnohistoria y a la linguistica de las poblaciones indigenas de Mexico y del norte de Centroamerica. Para el catalogo de manuscritos actualmente disponibles en linea hacer click aqui: http://www.famsi.org/spanish/research/mltdp/catalog.htm Haga clic aqui para ver mas informacion sobre el Proyecto Digitalizacion de Textos en Lenguas Mesoamericanas: http://www.famsi.org/spanish/research/mltdp/index.html Saludos, Sylvia Perrine, Archivista Fundacion para el Avance de Estudios Mesoamericanos, Inc. http://www.famsi.org/spanish/ _______________________________________________ Nahuatl mailing list Nahuatl at lists.famsi.org http://www.famsi.org/mailman/listinfo/nahuatl From ahchich1 at yahoo.com Sat Jan 19 17:16:01 2008 From: ahchich1 at yahoo.com (Carl callaway) Date: Sat, 19 Jan 2008 09:16:01 -0800 Subject: Aztec World Ages and the Calendar Stone Message-ID: Dear Friends, I have a question concerning the possible span of a world age as numerically recorded on the Aztec Calendar Stone. Gorden Brotherston in his Book of the Forth World (see his fig. 54 and pages 298-299) believes that the Aztec scribes encoded mathematically the time spans of world ages into the stone via the "mixcoa" or cloud serpents that frame the outer rim of the great stone. I am not an Aztec scholar so I can not refute or verify his interpretation. I hope those of you who are familiar with Aztec signs and iconography can tell me if his reading is at least plausible. Here is what he writes on page 299 of the work: "Just as the Era Four Ollin visually frames the proceeding four world ages at the center of the sunstone, so its length is recorded on the rim as we saw, in ten lots of ten Rounds imaged as cloud-snakes that issue from the squared scales of sky dragons to right and left. Now as we noted above, the heads peering from the dragons' maws below belong respectively to Fire Lord (left) and the Sun (right), who are One and Four in the set of thirteen Heroes. Hence, each endows its dragon and the Rounds on its back with number value, a capacity they and others among them display, for example, in the Pinturas transcription of the world-age story. As One, Fire Lord simply confirms the 5,200-year total; as Four, Sun multiples it to 20,800 to the remaining four-fifths of the Great Year [26,000 years]. Hence: 1x10x10x52=5,200 4x10x10x52=20,800 26,000 In the Cuauhtitlan Annals transcription of the Sunstone cosmogony, the four-fifths of the Great Year is noted as "CCCCC mixcoa," that is, four hundred cloud-snake rounds." My questions are these: Do the Fire Lord and the Sun God have numerical equivalents of 1 and 4? Are the 10 glyphs bordered by ten dots on the backs of the Serpents glyphs/names for the 52 year period? Where else in Aztec lit. is it mentioned that the so called cloud serpents manifest or are seen as representing a world Era? Finally is Gorden Brotherston still amongst the living so I might ask him directly? IF GB is correct, then I believe there are are interesting parallels that can be made to the art, numerology and iconography of other MesoAmerican cultures. I look forward to your answers. Carl Callaway --------------------------------- Be a better friend, newshound, and know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it now. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- _______________________________________________ Nahuatl mailing list Nahuatl at lists.famsi.org http://www.famsi.org/mailman/listinfo/nahuatl From oudyk at hotmail.com Sun Jan 20 21:12:58 2008 From: oudyk at hotmail.com (Michel Oudijk) Date: Sun, 20 Jan 2008 21:12:58 +0000 Subject: Aztec World Ages and the Calendar Stone In-Reply-To: <255886.81508.qm@web56111.mail.re3.yahoo.com> Message-ID: This is pure numerology and has nothing to do whatsoever with Mesoamerican culture, history or cosmovision. At least, I don't know of any indigenous sources, present or past, that justify this game of numbers and concepts. This search for encrypted codes, hidden messages, or mystic signs is a 'cosmic dragon' created by pseudo scholars and laymen without any kind of theoretical or methodological framework. Michel R. OudijkSeminario de Lenguas Ind?genasInstituto de Investigaciones Filol?gicasUniversidad Nacional Aut?noma de M?xico Date: Sat, 19 Jan 2008 09:16:01 -0800From: ahchich1 at yahoo.comTo: Nahuatl at lists.famsi.orgSubject: [Nahuat-l] Aztec World Ages and the Calendar StoneDear Friends,I have a question concerning the possible span of a world age as numerically recorded on the Aztec Calendar Stone. Gorden Brotherston in his Book of the Forth World (see his fig. 54 and pages 298-299) believes that the Aztec scribes encoded mathematically the time spans of world ages into the stone via the "mixcoa" or cloud serpents that frame the outer rim of the great stone. I am not an Aztec scholar so I can not refute or verify his interpretation. I hope those of you who are familiar with Aztec signs and iconography can tell me if his reading is at least plausible. Here is what he writes on page 299 of the work:"Just as the Era Four Ollin visually frames the proceeding four world ages at the center of the sunstone, so its length is recorded on the rim as we saw, in ten lots of ten Rounds imaged as cloud-snakes that issue from the squared scales of sky dragons to right and left. Now as we noted above, the heads peering from the dragons' maws below belong respectively to Fire Lord (left) and the Sun (right), who are One and Four in the set of thirteen Heroes. Hence, each endows its dragon and the Rounds on its back with number value, a capacity they and others among them display, for example, in the Pinturas transcription of the world-age story. As One, Fire Lord simply confirms the 5,200-year total; as Four, Sun multiples it to 20,800 to the remaining four-fifths of the Great Year [26,000 years]. Hence:1x10x10x52=5,2004x10x10x52=20,800 26,000In the Cuauhtitlan Annals transcription of the Sunstone cosmogony, the four-fifths of the Great Year is noted as "CCCCC mixcoa," that is, four hundred cloud-snake rounds."My questions are these:Do the Fire Lord and the Sun God have numerical equivalents of 1 and 4?Are the 10 glyphs bordered by ten dots on the backs of the Serpents glyphs/names for the 52 year period?Where else in Aztec lit. is it mentioned that the so called cloud serpents manifest or are seen as representing a world Era?Finally is Gorden Brotherston still amongst the living so I might ask him directly?IF GB is correct, then I believe there are are interesting parallels that can be made to the art, numerology and iconography of other MesoAmerican cultures.I look forward to your answers.Carl Callaway Be a better friend, newshound, and know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it now. Express yourself instantly with MSN Messenger! MSN Messenger _________________________________________________________________ Express yourself instantly with MSN Messenger! Download today it's FREE! http://messenger.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200471ave/direct/01/ -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- _______________________________________________ Nahuatl mailing list Nahuatl at lists.famsi.org http://www.famsi.org/mailman/listinfo/nahuatl From ECOLING at aol.com Sun Jan 20 22:39:24 2008 From: ECOLING at aol.com (Lloyd Anderson) Date: Sun, 20 Jan 2008 17:39:24 EST Subject: Calendar of Pre-Columbian Events Message-ID: I am happy to say that the on-line calendar of Pre-Columbian Events is now being actively maintained again, and I plan for it to remain so for many years. All months of 2008 are now present, and several future years will shortly be added since many organizations (SAA, AAA, etc.) have future meetings scheduled years in advance. Go directly to this URL http://www.traditionalhighcultures.com/Calendar.htm Or go here http://www.TraditionalHighCultures.com and click on "Calendar" in the upper left corner. If you have meetings of a significant general interest to announce, please send a note to me using the "Email changes here" button at the top of the Calendar page, including date(s), name of event, a web page URL if you have it or an email to which people can make inquiries Lloyd Anderson Ecological Linguistics PO Box 15156 Washington DC 20003 ecoling at aol.com 202-547-7683 ************** Start the year off right. Easy ways to stay in shape. http://body.aol.com/fitness/winter-exercise?NCID=aolcmp00300000002489 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- _______________________________________________ Nahuatl mailing list Nahuatl at lists.famsi.org http://www.famsi.org/mailman/listinfo/nahuatl From brokaw at buffalo.edu Mon Jan 21 22:33:18 2008 From: brokaw at buffalo.edu (Galen Brokaw) Date: Mon, 21 Jan 2008 17:33:18 -0500 Subject: Aztec World Ages and the Calendar Stone In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Dear Michel and Listeros, I don't have an answer to Carl's question, but I would contest Michel's assertion that Brotherston's analysis is "pure numerology" that has "nothing to do with Mesoamerican culture, history or cosmovision." In the interest of full disclosure, I should say that I studied under Brotherston in graduate school, and I admire his work. However, I think that I am fairly intellectually independent. With that disclaimer, I would argue that to dismiss Brotherston's analysis in the way that Michel does is problematic for several reasons. There is certainly a lot of pseudo-scholarship on Mesoamerican cultures, and, Michel, I share your frustration with it; but I don't see how anybody could say that Brotherston's work falls into that category. It is very misleading to say that his work, or even this particular analysis, is a search for "cryptic codes, hidden messages, or mystic signs." The implication is that indigenous texts are transparent and that numerological readings of them are on a par with Western numerological beliefs that have survived among small groups in modern European and Euro-american societies. First of all, there are many aspects of Mesoamerican iconography that we don't understand. And there is a fundamental difference in the cultural importance of the modern minority beliefs in new-age numerology and the dominant numerology of ancient cultures in both Mesoamerica and Europe and the Middle East. In Hebrew numerology, for example, it was believed that there was an inherent relationship between numbers and the letters of the Hebrew alphabet; and this was part of a dominant cultural perspective. It is important to note that in the Hebrew tradition, this numerology informed the production of texts in various different ways. This does not necessarily mean, as some people believe, that the Bible contains some sort of hidden code that predicts the future if we could only figure out how to decode it. But I think it is generally accepted that Hebrew literacy had a numerical dimension that manifested itself in significant ways. It is believed, for example, that there are 22 books in the Jewish canon because there are 22 letters in the Hebrew alphabet. This doesn't mean that identifying this numerical dimension of the text holds the key to some sort of mystical knowledge or even a hidden message, but it certainly gives us a more thorough understanding of Hebrew textuality; and in some cases, it may appropriately contribute to the way in which we understand certain texts. "Numerology" does not have to have the pejorative sense that it often has in modern Western culture. In any case, whether you call it numerology or not, the fact is that in Mesoamerican cultures indigenous numeracy is very complex (in many ways, even more so than in Western cultures), and it plays an important role in the integrated realm of politics, economics, religion, history, etc., and hence in the technologies of communication in which knowledge was inscribed. It is well known that many indigenous pictographic texts explicitly record quantities and sequences related to astronomical observations and calendrics, and that other non-quantitative imagery often has a numerical dimension. To be sure, the extent to which iconographic imagery is infused with indigenous numerical significance gets a bit tricky. It is often much less explicit, and hence more controversial. I think this is part of Brotherston's argument that Carl is trying to corroborate: for example, the numerical correlation of the Fire Lord and Sun God to the numbers one and four respectively. In general, though, trying to understand the significance of indigenous numeracy through the way it informs and is reflected in indigenous texts is not merely a "game of numbers and concepts." To dismiss Brotherston's analysis because you are not familiar with any sources that might justify his interpretation begs several questions. Of course, it is always important to be judicious in areas where there is a dearth of evidence. If Brotherston did not base his argument on an analysis of indigenous sources, then a non-substantive "lack of evidence" argument might seem compelling. But in fact there is abundant evidence for reading the numerological dimension of these texts. The argument Brotherston presents is based explicitly on a correlated reading of numerous indigenous texts. In the pages to which Carl refers, he is reading the Sun Stone, of course, but also the Mexicanus Codex, the Tepexic Annals, the Rios Codex, the Paris screenfold, the Cuauhtitlan Annals, the Vaticanus screenfold, and the Borgia. Based on the casual way in which you dismiss Brotherston's analysis, I'm assuming here (perhaps incorrectly) that you are familiar with both Brotherston's book and the texts that he cites. If so, the implication of your general dismissal of his argument is that although you acknowledge that these sources exist, you don't feel that they justify Brotherston's reading/interpretation. But you don't say anything substantive to back up this refutation. It certainly may be possible to refute Brotherston's argument, but in order to do so, you would have to actually formulate your own interpretive argument based on your own counter-reading of the texts that he cites and possibly others that he doesn't. In other words, you would have to engage his argument and his indigenous sources. Maybe you have already formulated such an argument. If so, that would be an interesting and legitimate contribution to a scholarly discussion. But you can't just refute him based on your own merely asserted authoritative knowledge of the corpus of Mesoamerican sources, particularly when Brotherston's argument is explicitly based on an analysis of numerous primary texts. Regardless of whether or not Brotherston's analysis is accurate, he has clearly done his homework, and it is unfair and irresponsible to dismiss his work if you haven't done yours. Michel, I hope you don't take this personally. Even if Gordon weren't a mentor and friend, I would caution everyone against refuting other people's work in such a casual, non-substantive way. Even in the case of the type of pseudo-scholarship that you mentioned, I think that it is normally better to just ignore it. I must confess that I have been guilty of doing the same thing for which I'm criticizing you with what I felt was pseudo-scholarship. So this criticism is something that I have self-reflexively applied to myself as well, for whatever that is worth. I recognize that there are times when pseudo-scholarship gains a lot of ground in the popular imagination and may even start encroaching on more serious academic work. In those cases, it may be necessary to identify it as such. But to the extent that it actually achieves some sort of encroachment or legitimacy, it also deserves substantive refutation at least once. Again, however, I have a hard time seeing how anyone could classify Brotherston's work as pseudo-scholarship. One of the premises of his work is that we should take indigenous texts seriously, and that is what he does in _Book of the Fourth World_; and he does it in a serious and scholarly way. In a book as broad-ranging as _Book of the Fourth World_, it would probably be hard to get everything right, and Brotherston would probably be the first to recognize that. And I'm sure that some of his arguments are controversial. But I don't think that there is any way that you can call him a pseudo-scholar or layman. I have a lot more that I could say about the theoretical and methodological framework, but I'll stop here. Galen Brokaw Michel Oudijk wrote: > This is pure numerology and has nothing to do whatsoever with > Mesoamerican culture, history or cosmovision. At least, I don't know > of any indigenous sources, present or past, that justify this game > of numbers and concepts. This search for encrypted codes, hidden > messages, or mystic signs is a 'cosmic dragon' created by pseudo > scholars and laymen without any kind of theoretical or > methodological framework. > > Michel R. Oudijk > Seminario de Lenguas Ind?genas > Instituto de Investigaciones Filol?gicas > Universidad Nacional Aut?noma de M?xico > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > Date: Sat, 19 Jan 2008 09:16:01 -0800 > From: ahchich1 at yahoo.com > To: Nahuatl at lists.famsi.org > Subject: [Nahuat-l] Aztec World Ages and the Calendar Stone > > Dear Friends, > > I have a question concerning the possible span of a world age as > numerically recorded on the Aztec Calendar Stone. Gorden Brotherston in his > Book of the Forth World (see his fig. 54 and pages 298-299) believes > that the Aztec scribes encoded mathematically the time spans of world ages > into the stone via the "mixcoa" or cloud serpents that frame the > outer rim of the great stone. I am not an Aztec scholar so I can > not refute or verify his interpretation. I hope those of you who are > familiar with Aztec signs and iconography can tell me if his reading > is at least plausible. > > Here is what he writes on page 299 of the work: > > "Just as the Era Four Ollin visually frames the proceeding four world > ages at the center of the sunstone, so its length is recorded on the rim > as we saw, in ten lots of ten Rounds imaged as cloud-snakes that issue > from the squared scales of sky dragons to > right and left. Now as we > noted above, the heads peering from the dragons' maws below belong > respectively to Fire Lord (left) and the Sun (right), who are One and Four in > the set of thirteen Heroes. Hence, each endows its dragon and the > Rounds on its back with number value, a capacity they and others among them > display, for example, in the Pinturas transcription of the world-age > story. As One, Fire Lord simply confirms the 5,200-year total; as Four, > Sun multiples it to 20,800 to the remaining four-fifths of the Great > Year [26,000 years]. Hence: > > 1x10x10x52R00 > 4x10x10x52 ,800 > > 26,000 > > > In the Cuauhtitlan Annals transcription of the Sunstone cosmogony, the > four-fifths of the Great Year is noted as "CCCC mixcoa," that is, four > hundred cloud-snake rounds." > > > My questions are these: > > Do the Fire Lord and the Sun God have numerical equivalents of 1 and 4? > > Are the 10 > glyphs bordered by ten dots on the backs of the Serpents > glyphs/names for the 52 year period? > > Where else in Aztec lit. is it mentioned that the so called cloud > serpents manifest or are seen as representing a world Era? > > Finally is Gorden Brotherston still amongst the living so I might ask > him directly? > > IF GB is correct, then I believe there are are interesting parallels > that can be made to the art, numerology and iconography of other > MesoAmerican cultures. > > I look forward to your answers. > > Carl Callaway > > > > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > Be a better friend, newshound, and know-it-all with Yahoo! > Mobile. Try it now. > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > Express yourself instantly with MSN Messenger! MSN Messenger > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > Express yourself instantly with MSN Messenger! MSN Messenger > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > _______________________________________________ > Nahuatl mailing list > Nahuatl at lists.famsi.org > http://www.famsi.org/mailman/listinfo/nahuatl _______________________________________________ Nahuatl mailing list Nahuatl at lists.famsi.org http://www.famsi.org/mailman/listinfo/nahuatl From bortiz at earthlink.net Mon Jan 21 23:27:01 2008 From: bortiz at earthlink.net (bernard Ortiz de Montellano) Date: Mon, 21 Jan 2008 18:27:01 -0500 Subject: Aztec World Ages and the Calendar Stone Message-ID: J???????("Z(??i??m??h??rj?k??^??h??j)?y?h?K(|????????wm??b??'???y???'%j)??????????????h?&???ej?????z??5?nj?^?)???2???rV??????br??????&?t ?y?.???{?????'^i????r??z{.???z????q??r%j??&?-?w???+z??jZh?{??^??m??+v)??'%j)?j??i??????????k????????%j)??????'???+br???Yc??j??^j?"??0??^i?.?????Z?k? ???{?? '??rV?????-????????'??^????????m????????? ?~'??r????^???u??+-?????j??J??????????!?+ej??????jg????jv????~?&???g?j[???u?b??^rZ.v??????,\??????)???b?O??+-?g???n???w?^???z????????????r? 2y???8^???????^J??????+???-??+hZ.??e?????z{Z?\??)?????+a?????????z1????pB?{ax??????'?)?z???*'jWZ??.???N???-rV??+,???}??j???????&??'?z?Z??^;^r?(?????m???r???*'??+??-??h??Z?)??????k*????q?^??????vf?ray*k?x????(??k'???&{???'??????j??????z+&j??w??*'i?.???z?^??aj}t?'??????j????? ??^????????ki??J?? ?^?????3??????????v??/???jj+z????h???j???????+???{ aj?az?????????wm????????az?h???zz-rZ.u??~*????z{l?*'?)??x0??Zw????'?g??Z ?????^??"r{?m????z??r?o)?????(???^?Lu??-??????w*?w?z?^????(???'z?????jwg??az?-jX?n?a???z{l???i??zwZ??.???l?j????????jW?u???????'???z??q?h??jW?u????????)??[??k??*e?)??{b??-??k+jY^w??j??j?????y???????n+?~X??????Z??b??'??-????)?z{^u????az?-??u??????\??????1??s'%z???M2y????y?^u????????j???u???x??????????????????-y?4??hi?(?jj?????jX??????Z?'?????????b??%??ay??zwZ??.???l?j??????????????u????3??,?????????j???v'g??'?h??!jwez?^???z???b????+l?8^???j[(???????Z?+)???zf???"?k??^??h?????? l??mi?^v+??????????????????*'??????????z?"?^??-???y?^v)????w*??z?^??-??????zW?z{a?????"?{v?lj?ay???????[j????-?+,???{br?????'??\z?_??az{?m??}?-??????{??aj?????v{??'????w%?????Z??????'??k?)???.??+??^?v?t???7^2??zYZ???????("??Lz????????&?f?zpk?F???????n??jZ?y???'???Z?m??M 3)??zh?{az??j?hv?"?a{??|!??h??????)?r%j?ru???????"?ay?????????az?-???????????{?ay??u??~????j|????j?.?????'?????j{?n?m??b??nu?-??%j)???!????-???????g???????j?.?????????{?.r?~?Z?*'???m??u?'n?a??????????????Z ?????.???"?????y?e?W????j????"??.?Z ????????Z ???~V???Z?)?jX?j??????g??????j?ly????h????)???aj??????????b?h???&z????(?F?????&?????x-??b?+j{Z?/?z??????????h??aj????+????????z?"?k??^??h??0??"??^????\?z??f?{????"?zz)???zl"?aj???+-???}??j?z{fjG???,??^j???????^v&?? ?i?.???????+???.z?????jje{???.?!j????j?!y????^??,j???r??"????????,j???-m?v????j??^?x??V????!?.????????r????+br+&??a??-j??z{b???y?'jh?????x???hz???????&z?Z??????'??%j)?? aj????3??,r???+?v?^??+y?b?{-?????Z???u????^???????+njW???j?(?Wfj?!??????J??z1???y???g??M2y???{az???????^??-{?^???????????z{Z?\??)????????^??????)?????)???????w"u??jV?u???+b?y?j{-??b????\?{k????????Z?*'j?^j???-????????Z????????r?????z?"????????i?m??m??2???j?????~?^q?^?????z?Z?x?r'^???y??r?-??\?{k???z?(???u??????x(~+l?+-zf??????'??j???'??m??az?????k&???{ .??????????'??j??~?^???z{ljwm??????q?l? ?~'???~?^??h???v????y???????????Z???jX?r???????^????+"???r+?+az?"????'!??aj?q????.??az???)????v+???i?.??^?)???-j{b??^?k+j?^??Z????+,?x-????????? ???m??????i???Z?h???Z??????'??(?H?~V???,?hh????z0z??????'??+&????????"??????????^r?Z?*'????^? +?)????zW???v????fy????b?+)???????Z??b????????'%???_????z??????,?x?'??ejz,z{??*&{'??????h?G?????'%?????A??az?-??=????A??,???'(jw_???????(?????fj|??????Z??z??z{?z?%? ?????&??Z??"?????ez???Z ???u?Z?kn????'? ?????3???[n???Z.???y?z?^u?'???????(jg??????h?????????????bq?i?)???!zw???????j??????????^????^???????'?????j{???h??^r?????#?e??-??-y?h?{H??-y????.r%j)?????{b???????+????????az?-??? ???1?bq??{p?'!u????"?x?????\??+a????]j???ay??y????R?t??w?}7???m??Z??!z??????)jw???y?_????????????m?]y????????v?z???(i????k?h??????a??b???j?v?????o+^??h?wly?!???~?????j??N?jg??'!???t??w??????axJ???:Yb???r'^????'(?w"u?0??m??)?)?z????h}u????^1?(jg?????{^?v???????r??????+%j?\?????!y??j{Z?/???y?e???????????????'???y?az*????????????aj?'y???{az*??GZ?????\jW?u????]??\??^J???*?)???&z??????????4????)???Z??????????????(??????n??u?^?W???Z?]4????)???Z????O?j?,2?-{;?k??>'???^?*%?&?zwZ? .????????m????+,?-??????????+"?)?????Z?????^???+)???zf???????z??????{????N?z+z?Z?yrjZ-??lz?h??!?V????s???z??jw.???z???????????"?Z????????kj?????+?n?Hv???????????n?rr??v?????-??????? +????????aj???(?/????????h?????x-??????+0??????z{a??Z????V????j\??????j?!~??r???'?????u??z????????????"?{??8^?je????????Z?)?????-{lj???????????w????g?g??Z ???????x,??azf?z???????Vz?^???????h?'?????????????????jj'????X+??l?y?u????.??^jv?tK????z??j{(r'????*?????_????j??j|???)y?l?????z??jx??z ??a??Z?????w^??Z?????az???+~??jg???]??????z)???.???jX????jw??azjz???h???????????y????z{?z?%? ???ay?&?v??{?z?%? ????????.???z??n?a1?(jg??????.??^jwm??"u?^?-????w???'?g??Z ?????Z??^?+pj???'?y?aj?az??j?????????????b?{!??????{?m??jwm??^?????????n???????z????a????????v?????r?m????????-???"????????j{m?z-z?Z?)????n??????????a????????2?w??g???az??v?-???~????????????????????8b???z-???q?,j???g?????????)????'?{?aj?ax???(?????(????????bu??r?^???????l?????z'?y?.??'?'????????0??^r?^?????-?)?????????e??z?^v?Z?w?????X?z????j{?z??jWb????????fjx?z?^v+lzW?????'?q????????+zX????~??????????m???j????(?????{????jz'm???????j???W?????{axw?????Zm??N?v??????g???Z?'^????)???????'???z{"?z??{a?Wl??{/???(??(???+-????z0??`z??????']zy????{???+????????("??.?????a??.??u??????x(|w???-{njX????jwb??&y??z???f?j?k???j????'????????^????br????u?????q??j)?{l??n?????2???z-?????Z??a{??z:+j??z????aj????^???y?u??Y?-z???[n?????????????az??????+g?g??Z ?????????r??????1?(jg????r?m????wb?????????s(????r??????y??,???????j+z?-????g????r?m??????v+i???jx????j{k?W??)??????+j?????????X????y?'?h?????("????h?/???????v?q????y?g?Z ??(}?&???q?b?x????I??W????????+?????b???I??{aj???(?v(????'-? ?????m?????br+e?????j????????????zw???j???????'?h?j_?????????jw\jW?v?????v?Z??az?????j{b??b???j????~????????'???z{"???????????????0?'!????z ??a???j??+"???y?"??v(???????'????'?q??{??z?n+m?'$??-???????ez???br+?jwazw?????(?????????"?b?Ka????????k??^??h??? ?z{m??Bj???+-?(??????n????????jje{?az{?z??jW(???j????????*?.??jwR?q?v?-?????????jw_???z?^r??z\?"????????.???(???.??????v?^?('???jw???v(?????????s+a?????^????)????jwb?????-y???wb?????^????+'?????rk??????z???(?????????N?b?h???????'???j\????q??{*.j??????)bj?"????????z?aj???c??b(b?)?z?kz?????z ,z??jZ?z?b?{?9??r??????+???)???Z??hm??v'"??"???j?!z?????????????h}??u??{??-????????????z?j?.????v????j\????wb?????(????azv?????-j{b???i?(???'^???j?.????(!?????&??e?x??b?????^???i??u????????q?????v)????g??Z ???v)???????????m???{??? ?z{A??az?-?zkz?????m?u?i?'"?\???(???j?????i??????g???"???zz.????????^????0?'! ?????????????v)????t??w???(?????j[(??{?j{? ?^?????z????'??l??^F*, ?^??ax???????~?]??^???j?m??Z? ?j[???j??j{????zw??????ax+?&?????v???????????br?????+,?-??????????+"??????????x!z?????j?"??+??-?/???r???y???X?????-?????az?-??n?$jwm??^??-??ay??z??~??????bq?b??????????????+,jZ?+? ?z{b??Z??m????*.????z0??`z?Z??^??(????b?????h??_y?m??m?????b/??-?????????v)??)?z?kz??????r??h??lk&???b????????????????m?++y??j????-q??j)??f?m?h?????h???~?^?-??????????g?????)??????h?????(?Waj?????r???\??????^???? ??????????? ?z{[j???|???0??????z??y?b? ??{l????"????h????*-????????v?????"z-?????l?*.???v?z???z?j?.???jwa????wb?????(?????????Z????????+??Z??l??Z????g????!?(??Z? .???jx????????????"?)???(???n?b?{hk??r%j?rv+??"??????????????~?^?)?j???|???0???z????,z?^u???????b??'? ^v?~?^r????1?(jg??????(????Z????V??,!zpk??^??h??? ?z{b??i?'"?\?j????jv?j\????????????j??{l??j?ez?(^??????????az?-??jv???????r?????z?rW??\??w???h??(?O????????w????v*?z?h?????hv+&??!??(?H????j?????v??????????"r???h?????'??Z??a??^??'jYr?K??'???h??z?k??z{h???~????????u???*'z?????j???ky???x(????^??^??(?H???!i?????????????????k/??????^q?????????~??????h????*m??r?????????"?b?Kaj????????jYrm?mz?h??-? ?????????(?????Z??Z???z?????*v????^???????+?????r??????x2??"?!j??????????v??r%j?!?????b????'"?h????????Z??Z?????_?????b??rj?e??m?l?zW???????Z?????Z?+0??a?????(?x?z?Z??^???z??z?!zzlz?h??!?V????????h???? ??wb??^??n?????"??b?v?vf?z????????????)??y?????????q?^?'0???"{a???j???+fk&????????"u??????+Z?????n??-???????????????&??'?z?(??(?????r?r???+??"?)?s/???l???z?????????+??????b?v???^j?h?????????h?????!j??????)?????h????w???]rV??'???k??^??h??0?????????h????*?:w?~?^????????b?????"??Z?????v??z)?????-{l?????%???v?Z?+0???????"??h?J??????j+???jway??+b???*.???????Z?\?k/?????F?n?w????????$??axZ.??V??]?????(?Wi???n\?z?v? z??z???)??(!???t?????'???w?????n\?z?^~*???+y? ?,???? ?#???????l?g?~???????????(??????????Hv????b?Kaj?az??????????Z?*.q??jYa?f????????Z???k)???!j????f????????(?Wlk&???m??az???'?????a??%??jW?jg????n?H?Y???h??{??????????????????????????????????????????????????????Z????f??)??+-5?nj???+-????????!?????0????????????????+-?w??v???e From oudyk at hotmail.com Tue Jan 22 04:45:30 2008 From: oudyk at hotmail.com (Michel Oudijk) Date: Tue, 22 Jan 2008 04:45:30 +0000 Subject: Aztec World Ages and the Calendar Stone In-Reply-To: <47951DAE.7040107@buffalo.edu> Message-ID: Dear all, For those of you who would like to know what the Sun Stone is about, please read Michel Graulich's article 'La piedra del sol' in "Azteca Mexica: Las culturas del M?xico antiguo" (Jos? Alcina Franch, Miguel Le?n-Portilla and Eduardo Matos Moctezuma (eds.), INAH/Quinto Centenario/Lunwerg, Madrid, pp. 291-295). Compare that reading with Brotherston's and I think the issue will be clear. I certainly agree with Galen on one thing; I just should have ignored the message. Michel > Date: Mon, 21 Jan 2008 17:33:18 -0500> From: brokaw at buffalo.edu> CC: nahuatl at lists.famsi.org> Subject: Re: [Nahuat-l] Aztec World Ages and the Calendar Stone> > Dear Michel and Listeros,> I don't have an answer to Carl's question, but I would contest Michel's > assertion that Brotherston's analysis is "pure numerology" that has > "nothing to do with Mesoamerican culture, history or cosmovision." In > the interest of full disclosure, I should say that I studied under > Brotherston in graduate school, and I admire his work. However, I think > that I am fairly intellectually independent. With that disclaimer, I > would argue that to dismiss Brotherston's analysis in the way that > Michel does is problematic for several reasons.> > There is certainly a lot of pseudo-scholarship on Mesoamerican cultures, > and, Michel, I share your frustration with it; but I don't see how > anybody could say that Brotherston's work falls into that category. It > is very misleading to say that his work, or even this particular > analysis, is a search for "cryptic codes, hidden messages, or mystic > signs." The implication is that indigenous texts are transparent and > that numerological readings of them are on a par with Western > numerological beliefs that have survived among small groups in modern > European and Euro-american societies. First of all, there are many > aspects of Mesoamerican iconography that we don't understand. And there > is a fundamental difference in the cultural importance of the modern > minority beliefs in new-age numerology and the dominant numerology of > ancient cultures in both Mesoamerica and Europe and the Middle East. In > Hebrew numerology, for example, it was believed that there was an > inherent relationship between numbers and the letters of the Hebrew > alphabet; and this was part of a dominant cultural perspective. It is > important to note that in the Hebrew tradition, this numerology informed > the production of texts in various different ways. This does not > necessarily mean, as some people believe, that the Bible contains some > sort of hidden code that predicts the future if we could only figure out > how to decode it. But I think it is generally accepted that Hebrew > literacy had a numerical dimension that manifested itself in significant > ways. It is believed, for example, that there are 22 books in the Jewish > canon because there are 22 letters in the Hebrew alphabet. This doesn't > mean that identifying this numerical dimension of the text holds the key > to some sort of mystical knowledge or even a hidden message, but it > certainly gives us a more thorough understanding of Hebrew textuality; > and in some cases, it may appropriately contribute to the way in which > we understand certain texts. "Numerology" does not have to have the > pejorative sense that it often has in modern Western culture. In any > case, whether you call it numerology or not, the fact is that in > Mesoamerican cultures indigenous numeracy is very complex (in many ways, > even more so than in Western cultures), and it plays an important role > in the integrated realm of politics, economics, religion, history, etc., > and hence in the technologies of communication in which knowledge was > inscribed. It is well known that many indigenous pictographic texts > explicitly record quantities and sequences related to astronomical > observations and calendrics, and that other non-quantitative imagery > often has a numerical dimension. To be sure, the extent to which > iconographic imagery is infused with indigenous numerical significance > gets a bit tricky. It is often much less explicit, and hence more > controversial. I think this is part of Brotherston's argument that Carl > is trying to corroborate: for example, the numerical correlation of the > Fire Lord and Sun God to the numbers one and four respectively. In > general, though, trying to understand the significance of indigenous > numeracy through the way it informs and is reflected in indigenous texts > is not merely a "game of numbers and concepts."> > To dismiss Brotherston's analysis because you are not familiar with any > sources that might justify his interpretation begs several questions. Of > course, it is always important to be judicious in areas where there is a > dearth of evidence. If Brotherston did not base his argument on an > analysis of indigenous sources, then a non-substantive "lack of > evidence" argument might seem compelling. But in fact there is abundant > evidence for reading the numerological dimension of these texts. The > argument Brotherston presents is based explicitly on a correlated > reading of numerous indigenous texts. In the pages to which Carl refers, > he is reading the Sun Stone, of course, but also the Mexicanus Codex, > the Tepexic Annals, the Rios Codex, the Paris screenfold, the > Cuauhtitlan Annals, the Vaticanus screenfold, and the Borgia.> > Based on the casual way in which you dismiss Brotherston's analysis, I'm > assuming here (perhaps incorrectly) that you are familiar with both > Brotherston's book and the texts that he cites. If so, the implication > of your general dismissal of his argument is that although you > acknowledge that these sources exist, you don't feel that they justify > Brotherston's reading/interpretation. But you don't say anything > substantive to back up this refutation. It certainly may be possible to > refute Brotherston's argument, but in order to do so, you would have to > actually formulate your own interpretive argument based on your own > counter-reading of the texts that he cites and possibly others that he > doesn't. In other words, you would have to engage his argument and his > indigenous sources. Maybe you have already formulated such an argument. > If so, that would be an interesting and legitimate contribution to a > scholarly discussion. But you can't just refute him based on your own > merely asserted authoritative knowledge of the corpus of Mesoamerican > sources, particularly when Brotherston's argument is explicitly based on > an analysis of numerous primary texts. Regardless of whether or not > Brotherston's analysis is accurate, he has clearly done his homework, > and it is unfair and irresponsible to dismiss his work if you haven't > done yours.> > Michel, I hope you don't take this personally. Even if Gordon weren't a > mentor and friend, I would caution everyone against refuting other > people's work in such a casual, non-substantive way. Even in the case of > the type of pseudo-scholarship that you mentioned, I think that it is > normally better to just ignore it. I must confess that I have been > guilty of doing the same thing for which I'm criticizing you with what I > felt was pseudo-scholarship. So this criticism is something that I have > self-reflexively applied to myself as well, for whatever that is worth. > I recognize that there are times when pseudo-scholarship gains a lot of > ground in the popular imagination and may even start encroaching on more > serious academic work. In those cases, it may be necessary to identify > it as such. But to the extent that it actually achieves some sort of > encroachment or legitimacy, it also deserves substantive refutation at > least once.> > Again, however, I have a hard time seeing how anyone could classify > Brotherston's work as pseudo-scholarship. One of the premises of his > work is that we should take indigenous texts seriously, and that is what > he does in _Book of the Fourth World_; and he does it in a serious and > scholarly way. In a book as broad-ranging as _Book of the Fourth World_, > it would probably be hard to get everything right, and Brotherston would > probably be the first to recognize that. And I'm sure that some of his > arguments are controversial. But I don't think that there is any way > that you can call him a pseudo-scholar or layman. I have a lot more that > I could say about the theoretical and methodological framework, but I'll > stop here.> > Galen Brokaw> > > > > > Michel Oudijk wrote:> > This is pure numerology and has nothing to do whatsoever with> > Mesoamerican culture, history or cosmovision. At least, I don't know> > of any indigenous sources, present or past, that justify this game> > of numbers and concepts. This search for encrypted codes, hidden> > messages, or mystic signs is a 'cosmic dragon' created by pseudo> > scholars and laymen without any kind of theoretical or> > methodological framework.> > > > Michel R. Oudijk> > Seminario de Lenguas Ind?genas> > Instituto de Investigaciones Filol?gicas> > Universidad Nacional Aut?noma de M?xico> > > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------> > Date: Sat, 19 Jan 2008 09:16:01 -0800> > From: ahchich1 at yahoo.com> > To: Nahuatl at lists.famsi.org> > Subject: [Nahuat-l] Aztec World Ages and the Calendar Stone> > > > Dear Friends,> > > > I have a question concerning the possible span of a world age as> > numerically recorded on the Aztec Calendar Stone. Gorden Brotherston in his> > Book of the Forth World (see his fig. 54 and pages 298-299) believes> > that the Aztec scribes encoded mathematically the time spans of world ages> > into the stone via the "mixcoa" or cloud serpents that frame the> > outer rim of the great stone. I am not an Aztec scholar so I can> > not refute or verify his interpretation. I hope those of you who are> > familiar with Aztec signs and iconography can tell me if his reading> > is at least plausible. > > > > Here is what he writes on page 299 of the work:> > > > "Just as the Era Four Ollin visually frames the proceeding four world> > ages at the center of the sunstone, so its length is recorded on the rim> > as we saw, in ten lots of ten Rounds imaged as cloud-snakes that issue> > from the squared scales of sky dragons to> > right and left. Now as we> > noted above, the heads peering from the dragons' maws below belong> > respectively to Fire Lord (left) and the Sun (right), who are One and Four in> > the set of thirteen Heroes. Hence, each endows its dragon and the> > Rounds on its back with number value, a capacity they and others among them> > display, for example, in the Pinturas transcription of the world-age> > story. As One, Fire Lord simply confirms the 5,200-year total; as Four,> > Sun multiples it to 20,800 to the remaining four-fifths of the Great> > Year [26,000 years]. Hence:> > > > 1x10x10x52=200> > 4x10x10x52 ,800> > > > 26,000> > > > > > In the Cuauhtitlan Annals transcription of the Sunstone cosmogony, the> > four-fifths of the Great Year is noted as "CCCC mixcoa," that is, four> > hundred cloud-snake rounds."> > > > > > My questions are these:> > > > Do the Fire Lord and the Sun God have numerical equivalents of 1 and 4?> > > > Are the 10> > glyphs bordered by ten dots on the backs of the Serpents> > glyphs/names for the 52 year period?> > > > Where else in Aztec lit. is it mentioned that the so called cloud> > serpents manifest or are seen as representing a world Era?> > > > Finally is Gorden Brotherston still amongst the living so I might ask> > him directly?> > > > IF GB is correct, then I believe there are are interesting parallels> > that can be made to the art, numerology and iconography of other> > MesoAmerican cultures.> > > > I look forward to your answers.> > > > Carl Callaway> > > > > > > > > > > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------> > Be a better friend, newshound, and know-it-all with Yahoo!> > Mobile. Try it now.> > > > > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------> > Express yourself instantly with MSN Messenger! MSN Messenger> > > > > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------> > Express yourself instantly with MSN Messenger! MSN Messenger > > > > > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------> > > > _______________________________________________> > Nahuatl mailing list> > Nahuatl at lists.famsi.org> > http://www.famsi.org/mailman/listinfo/nahuatl> > _______________________________________________> Nahuatl mailing list> Nahuatl at lists.famsi.org> http://www.famsi.org/mailman/listinfo/nahuatl _________________________________________________________________ Express yourself instantly with MSN Messenger! Download today it's FREE! http://messenger.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200471ave/direct/01/ -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- _______________________________________________ Nahuatl mailing list Nahuatl at lists.famsi.org http://www.famsi.org/mailman/listinfo/nahuatl From a.appleyard at btinternet.com Tue Jan 22 05:51:41 2008 From: a.appleyard at btinternet.com (ANTHONY APPLEYARD) Date: Tue, 22 Jan 2008 05:51:41 +0000 Subject: Codes used for messages Message-ID: These two messages from this group: From: brokaw at buffalo.edu at Mon, 21 Jan 2008 22:47:33 -0500 From: bortiz at earthlink.net at Mon, 21 Jan 2008 18:27:01 -0500 (EST) both with title Re: [Nahuat-l] Aztec World Ages and the Calendar Stone reached me as a random jumble of characters, e.g.: "J???????("Z(??i??m??h??rj?k??^??h????{^t(??1?br??u?.??aj??r??j)?v" What mode were they input as? _______________________________________________ Nahuatl mailing list Nahuatl at lists.famsi.org http://www.famsi.org/mailman/listinfo/nahuatl From mwswanton at yahoo.com Tue Jan 22 07:47:58 2008 From: mwswanton at yahoo.com (Michael Swanton) Date: Mon, 21 Jan 2008 23:47:58 -0800 Subject: Aztec World Ages and the Calendar Stone In-Reply-To: <47951DAE.7040107@buffalo.edu> Message-ID: ?It is well known that many indigenous pictographic texts explicitly record quantities and sequences related to astronomical observations and calendrics, and that other non-quantitative imagery often has a numerical dimension.? Outside the Maya region, what Mesoamerican codices explicitly record astronomical observations? --- Galen Brokaw wrote: > Dear Michel and Listeros, > I don't have an answer to Carl's question, but I > would contest Michel's > assertion that Brotherston's analysis is "pure > numerology" that has > "nothing to do with Mesoamerican culture, history or > cosmovision." In > the interest of full disclosure, I should say that I > studied under > Brotherston in graduate school, and I admire his > work. However, I think > that I am fairly intellectually independent. With > that disclaimer, I > would argue that to dismiss Brotherston's analysis > in the way that > Michel does is problematic for several reasons. > > There is certainly a lot of pseudo-scholarship on > Mesoamerican cultures, > and, Michel, I share your frustration with it; but I > don't see how > anybody could say that Brotherston's work falls into > that category. It > is very misleading to say that his work, or even > this particular > analysis, is a search for "cryptic codes, hidden > messages, or mystic > signs." The implication is that indigenous texts are > transparent and > that numerological readings of them are on a par > with Western > numerological beliefs that have survived among small > groups in modern > European and Euro-american societies. First of all, > there are many > aspects of Mesoamerican iconography that we don't > understand. And there > is a fundamental difference in the cultural > importance of the modern > minority beliefs in new-age numerology and the > dominant numerology of > ancient cultures in both Mesoamerica and Europe and > the Middle East. In > Hebrew numerology, for example, it was believed that > there was an > inherent relationship between numbers and the > letters of the Hebrew > alphabet; and this was part of a dominant cultural > perspective. It is > important to note that in the Hebrew tradition, this > numerology informed > the production of texts in various different ways. > This does not > necessarily mean, as some people believe, that the > Bible contains some > sort of hidden code that predicts the future if we > could only figure out > how to decode it. But I think it is generally > accepted that Hebrew > literacy had a numerical dimension that manifested > itself in significant > ways. It is believed, for example, that there are 22 > books in the Jewish > canon because there are 22 letters in the Hebrew > alphabet. This doesn't > mean that identifying this numerical dimension of > the text holds the key > to some sort of mystical knowledge or even a hidden > message, but it > certainly gives us a more thorough understanding of > Hebrew textuality; > and in some cases, it may appropriately contribute > to the way in which > we understand certain texts. "Numerology" does not > have to have the > pejorative sense that it often has in modern Western > culture. In any > case, whether you call it numerology or not, the > fact is that in > Mesoamerican cultures indigenous numeracy is very > complex (in many ways, > even more so than in Western cultures), and it plays > an important role > in the integrated realm of politics, economics, > religion, history, etc., > and hence in the technologies of communication in > which knowledge was > inscribed. It is well known that many indigenous > pictographic texts > explicitly record quantities and sequences related > to astronomical > observations and calendrics, and that other > non-quantitative imagery > often has a numerical dimension. To be sure, the > extent to which > iconographic imagery is infused with indigenous > numerical significance > gets a bit tricky. It is often much less explicit, > and hence more > controversial. I think this is part of Brotherston's > argument that Carl > is trying to corroborate: for example, the numerical > correlation of the > Fire Lord and Sun God to the numbers one and four > respectively. In > general, though, trying to understand the > significance of indigenous > numeracy through the way it informs and is reflected > in indigenous texts > is not merely a "game of numbers and concepts." > > To dismiss Brotherston's analysis because you are > not familiar with any > sources that might justify his interpretation begs > several questions. Of > course, it is always important to be judicious in > areas where there is a > dearth of evidence. If Brotherston did not base his > argument on an > analysis of indigenous sources, then a > non-substantive "lack of > evidence" argument might seem compelling. But in > fact there is abundant > evidence for reading the numerological dimension of > these texts. The > argument Brotherston presents is based explicitly on > a correlated > reading of numerous indigenous texts. In the pages > to which Carl refers, > he is reading the Sun Stone, of course, but also the > Mexicanus Codex, > the Tepexic Annals, the Rios Codex, the Paris > screenfold, the > Cuauhtitlan Annals, the Vaticanus screenfold, and > the Borgia. > > Based on the casual way in which you dismiss > Brotherston's analysis, I'm > assuming here (perhaps incorrectly) that you are > familiar with both > Brotherston's book and the texts that he cites. If > so, the implication > of your general dismissal of his argument is that > although you > acknowledge that these sources exist, you don't feel > that they justify > Brotherston's reading/interpretation. But you don't > say anything > substantive to back up this refutation. It certainly > may be possible to > refute Brotherston's argument, but in order to do > so, you would have to > actually formulate your own interpretive argument > based on your own > counter-reading of the texts that he cites and > possibly others that he > doesn't. In other words, you would have to engage > his argument and his > indigenous sources. Maybe you have already > formulated such an argument. > If so, that would be an interesting and legitimate > contribution to a > scholarly discussion. But you can't just refute him > based on your own > merely asserted authoritative knowledge of the > corpus of Mesoamerican > sources, particularly when Brotherston's argument is > explicitly based on > an analysis of numerous primary texts. Regardless of > whether or not > Brotherston's analysis is accurate, he has clearly > done his homework, > and it is unfair and irresponsible to dismiss his > work if you haven't > done yours. > > Michel, I hope you don't take this personally. Even > if Gordon weren't a > mentor and friend, I would caution everyone against > refuting other > people's work in such a casual, non-substantive way. > Even in the case of > the type of pseudo-scholarship that you mentioned, I > think that it is > normally better to just ignore it. I must confess > that I have been > guilty of doing the same thing for which I'm > criticizing you with what I > felt was pseudo-scholarship. So this criticism is > something that I have > self-reflexively applied to myself as well, for > whatever that is worth. > I recognize that there are times when > pseudo-scholarship gains a lot of > ground in the popular imagination and may even start > encroaching on more > serious academic work. In those cases, it may be > necessary to identify > it as such. But to the extent that it actually > achieves some sort of > encroachment or legitimacy, it also deserves > substantive refutation at > least once. > > Again, however, I have a hard time seeing how anyone > could classify > Brotherston's work as pseudo-scholarship. One of the > premises of his > work is that we should take indigenous texts > seriously, and that is what > he does in _Book of the Fourth World_; and he does > it in a serious and > scholarly way. In a book as broad-ranging as _Book > of the Fourth World_, > it would probably be hard to get everything right, > and Brotherston would > probably be the first to recognize that. And I'm > sure that some of his > arguments are controversial. But I don't think that > there is any way > that you can call him a pseudo-scholar or layman. I > have a lot more that > I could say about the theoretical and methodological > framework, but I'll > stop here. > > Galen Brokaw > > > > > > Michel Oudijk wrote: > > This is pure numerology and has nothing to do > whatsoever with > > Mesoamerican culture, history or cosmovision. > At least, I don't know > > of any indigenous sources, present or past, > that justify this game > > of numbers and concepts. This search for > encrypted codes, hidden > > messages, or mystic signs is a 'cosmic dragon' > created by pseudo > > scholars and laymen without any kind of > theoretical or > > methodological framework. > > > > Michel R. Oudijk > > Seminario de Lenguas Ind?genas > > Instituto de Investigaciones Filol?gicas > > Universidad Nacional Aut?noma de M?xico > > > > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > Date: Sat, 19 Jan 2008 09:16:01 -0800 > > From: ahchich1 at yahoo.com > > To: Nahuatl at lists.famsi.org > > Subject: [Nahuat-l] Aztec World Ages and > the Calendar Stone > > > > Dear Friends, > > > > I have a question concerning the possible > span of a world age as > > numerically recorded on the Aztec > Calendar Stone. Gorden Brotherston in his > > Book of the Forth World (see his fig. 54 > and pages 298-299) believes > > that the Aztec scribes encoded > mathematically the time spans of world ages > > into the stone via the "mixcoa" or > cloud serpents that frame the > > outer rim of the great stone. I am > not an Aztec scholar so I can > > not refute or verify his > interpretation. I hope those of you who are > > familiar with Aztec signs and > iconography can tell me if his reading > > is at least plausible. > > > > Here is what he writes on page 299 of the > work: > > > > "Just as the Era Four Ollin visually > frames the proceeding four world > > ages at the center of the sunstone, so > its length is recorded on the rim > > as we saw, in ten lots of ten Rounds > imaged as cloud-snakes that issue > > from the squared scales of sky dragons to > > right and left. Now as we > > noted above, the heads peering from the > dragons' maws below belong > > respectively to Fire Lord (left) and the > Sun (right), who are One and Four in > > the set of thirteen Heroes. Hence, each > endows its dragon and the > > Rounds on its back with number value, a > capacity they and others among them > > display, for example, in the Pinturas > transcription of the world-age > > story. As One, Fire Lord simply confirms > the 5,200-year total; as Four, > > Sun multiples it to 20,800 to the > remaining four-fifths of the Great > > Year [26,000 years]. Hence: > > > > 1x10x10x52R00 > > 4x10x10x52 ,800 > > > > 26,000 > > > > > > In the Cuauhtitlan Annals transcription of > the Sunstone cosmogony, the > > four-fifths of the Great Year is noted as > "CCCC mixcoa," that is, four > > hundred cloud-snake rounds." > > > > > > My questions are these: > > > > Do the Fire Lord and the Sun God have > numerical equivalents of 1 and 4? > > > > Are the 10 > > glyphs bordered by ten dots on the backs > of the Serpents > > glyphs/names for the 52 year period? > > > > Where else in Aztec lit. is it mentioned > that the so called cloud > > serpents manifest or are seen as > representing a world Era? > > > > Finally is Gorden Brotherston still > amongst the living so I might ask > > him directly? > > > > IF GB is correct, then I believe there are > are interesting parallels > > that can be made to the art, numerology > and iconography of other > > MesoAmerican cultures. > > > > I look forward to your answers. > > > > Carl Callaway > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > Be a better friend, newshound, and > know-it-all with Yahoo! > > Mobile. Try it now. > > > > > > > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > Express yourself instantly with MSN Messenger! > MSN Messenger > > > > > > > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > Express yourself instantly with MSN Messenger! MSN > Messenger > > > > > > > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Nahuatl mailing list > > Nahuatl at lists.famsi.org > > http://www.famsi.org/mailman/listinfo/nahuatl > > _______________________________________________ > Nahuatl mailing list > Nahuatl at lists.famsi.org > http://www.famsi.org/mailman/listinfo/nahuatl > ____________________________________________________________________________________ Looking for last minute shopping deals? Find them fast with Yahoo! Search. http://tools.search.yahoo.com/newsearch/category.php?category_______________________________________________ Nahuatl mailing list Nahuatl at lists.famsi.org http://www.famsi.org/mailman/listinfo/nahuatl From brokaw at buffalo.edu Tue Jan 22 14:38:02 2008 From: brokaw at buffalo.edu (Galen Brokaw) Date: Tue, 22 Jan 2008 09:38:02 -0500 Subject: Aztec World Ages and the Calendar Stone In-Reply-To: <615655.96265.qm@web31711.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: Michael, Although I was not specific, you are right that I was referring in general to Mesoamerican texts, not just the Maya. But I did not refer to actual astronomical observations themselves. I referred to quantities and sequences "_related_ to astronomical observations." Variations of the calendar, which was originally based on actual astronomical observations, were wide-spread in Mesoamerica. And there seems to be a "numerology" associated with calendrics that extends to more general cosmogony and religion. Thus, the numbers and sequences involved in calendrics and cosmogonic numerology throughout Mesoamerica are _related_ in one way or another to the astronomical observations explicitly made by the Maya. I could be wrong, but I don't think that in general terms this is controversial. It seems to me that the controversial part has to do with the extent to which, and the particular way in which, indigenous texts are infused with numerological significance. Galen Michael Swanton wrote: > ?It is well known that many indigenous pictographic > texts explicitly record quantities and sequences > related to astronomical observations and calendrics, > and that other non-quantitative imagery often has a > numerical dimension.? > > Outside the Maya region, what Mesoamerican codices > explicitly record astronomical observations? > _______________________________________________ Nahuatl mailing list Nahuatl at lists.famsi.org http://www.famsi.org/mailman/listinfo/nahuatl From brokaw at buffalo.edu Tue Jan 22 14:47:49 2008 From: brokaw at buffalo.edu (Galen Brokaw) Date: Tue, 22 Jan 2008 09:47:49 -0500 Subject: Codes used for messages In-Reply-To: <558436.8679.qm@web86707.mail.ird.yahoo.com> Message-ID: Evidently both Bernard's post and my response were unreadable. I think Bernard accidentally reposted his message to Aztlan. I reposted mine again in response to his before I realized that it was going to Aztlan. I'll repost it here for anyone who is not subscribed to Aztlan: My main point here has to do with the way in which one engages in scholarly debate, not with the accuracy of Brotherston's work. Of course, the burden of proof of any given argument is on the claimant, but that includes the claimant who wishes to refute someone else's argument. Of course, such refutations can be made on both substantive and methodological grounds. It is perfectly legitimate to point out logical or methodological flaws that invalidate an argument, as Bernard seems to do. My point is that you can't just dismiss someone's work by merely asserting that it is fantasy. Bernard, it seems to me that your criticism engages with Brotherston's work in a perfectly legitimate way, and I have no problem with that. This type of engagement makes possible a responsible dialogue about substantive issues. For example, although I haven't searched for the passage that you cite in your message, just based on that quote in isolation, one could argue that your criticism of this statement is based on a misreading: it doesn't seem to me that Brotherston is claiming that "the Aztecs contrived their creation story so that one day in their 260 day ritual calendar would match the Spring Equinox of a year some 4700 years in the past." In the quote, he says that it "incidentally coincides" with the spring equinox. Saying that it is incidental by definition means that it was not contrived. In isolation at least, Brotherston's statement merely seems to be pointing out the fact that the systematicity of the calendar has certain incidental effects that contribute to our understanding of its systematicity. In the larger context of the quote, maybe there would be more to say. In the case of the serpents and the numerical significance of their dots, I don't have an answer. Maybe you have a valid criticism there. This is precisely the point, which is that we can discuss these things and disagree about them in substantive terms rather than dismissing them out of hand. As I said before, I'm not claiming that Brotherston's work is flawless. Whose is? However, even if it is more fraught with error and/or speculation than other work in the field, that does not mean that it is pseudo-scholarship. Galen ANTHONY APPLEYARD wrote: > These two messages from this group: > From: brokaw at buffalo.edu at Mon, 21 Jan 2008 22:47:33 -0500 > From: bortiz at earthlink.net at Mon, 21 Jan 2008 18:27:01 -0500 (EST) > both with title > Re: [Nahuat-l] Aztec World Ages and the Calendar Stone > reached me as a random jumble of characters, e.g.: > "J???????("Z(??i??m??h??rj?k??^??h????{^t(??1?br??u?.??aj??r??j)?v" > What mode were they input as? > > _______________________________________________ > Nahuatl mailing list > Nahuatl at lists.famsi.org > http://www.famsi.org/mailman/listinfo/nahuatl > > -------------- next part -------------- _______________________________________________ Nahuatl mailing list Nahuatl at lists.famsi.org http://www.famsi.org/mailman/listinfo/nahuatl From dcwright at prodigy.net.mx Tue Jan 22 16:35:07 2008 From: dcwright at prodigy.net.mx (David Wright) Date: Tue, 22 Jan 2008 10:35:07 -0600 Subject: Codes used for messages Message-ID: They came in blank on my machine. >[Anthony Appleyard wrote:] >These two messages from this group: >From: brokaw at buffalo.edu at Mon, 21 Jan 2008 22:47:33 -0500 >From: bortiz at earthlink.net at Mon, 21 Jan 2008 18:27:01 -0500 (EST) >both with title >Re: [Nahuat-l] Aztec World Ages and the Calendar Stone >reached me as a random jumble of characters, e.g.: >"J???????("Z(??i?m??h??rj?k??^??h????{^t(??1?br??u?.??aj?r??j)?v" >What mode were they input as? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- _______________________________________________ Nahuatl mailing list Nahuatl at lists.famsi.org http://www.famsi.org/mailman/listinfo/nahuatl From jeanne.gillespie at usm.edu Tue Jan 22 18:19:23 2008 From: jeanne.gillespie at usm.edu (Jeanne Gillespie) Date: Tue, 22 Jan 2008 12:19:23 -0600 Subject: Fwd: Codes used for messages In-Reply-To: Message-ID: I agree with Galen, and I would like to add that in terms of the scholarly minds Gordon has trained and inspired and the international scholars he has brought together for dialogue and sharing over the past twenty years, Gordon has been extremely influential among the international community of thinkers and analysts of Mesoamerican texts and their contexts. His work has caused many of us to reexamine a text for a specific purpose (including numerical significance, place name relevance, geo-spatial information) that has led to further understanding of many of the canonical and non-canonical pictorial (and alphabetic!) manuscripts. He has also helped students and scholars have access to materials in libraries around the world not previously available, and he is most generous in engaging in scholarly discussion and debate about his work. I think you can contact him at his Essex email, ( http://www.essex.ac.uk/literature/people/gordon_brotherston.htm) but someone may have a more up-to-date one. For questions about the calendar stone, I suggest that you contact Emily Umberger at Arizona State and Cecelia Klein at UCLA as well. Jeanne On Jan 22, 2008 8:47 AM, Galen Brokaw wrote: > Evidently both Bernard's post and my response were unreadable. I think > Bernard accidentally reposted his message to Aztlan. I reposted mine > again in response to his before I realized that it was going to Aztlan. > I'll repost it here for anyone who is not subscribed to Aztlan: > > My main point here has to do with the way in which one engages in > scholarly debate, not with the accuracy of Brotherston's work. Of > course, the burden of proof of any given argument is on the claimant, > but that includes the claimant who wishes to refute someone else's > argument. Of course, such refutations can be made on both substantive > and methodological grounds. It is perfectly legitimate to point out > logical or methodological flaws that invalidate an argument, as Bernard > seems to do. My point is that you can't just dismiss someone's work by > merely asserting that it is fantasy. Bernard, it seems to me that your > criticism engages with Brotherston's work in a perfectly legitimate way, > and I have no problem with that. This type of engagement makes possible > a responsible dialogue about substantive issues. For example, although I > haven't searched for the passage that you cite in your message, just > based on that quote in isolation, one could argue that your criticism of > this statement is based on a misreading: it doesn't seem to me that > Brotherston is claiming that "the Aztecs contrived their creation story > so that one day in their 260 day ritual calendar would match the Spring > Equinox of a year some 4700 years in the past." In the quote, he says > that it "incidentally coincides" with the spring equinox. Saying that it > is incidental by definition means that it was not contrived. In > isolation at least, Brotherston's statement merely seems to be pointing > out the fact that the systematicity of the calendar has certain > incidental effects that contribute to our understanding of its > systematicity. In the larger context of the quote, maybe there would be > more to say. In the case of the serpents and the numerical significance > of their dots, I don't have an answer. Maybe you have a valid criticism > there. This is precisely the point, which is that we can discuss these > things and disagree about them in substantive terms rather than > dismissing them out of hand. As I said before, I'm not claiming that > Brotherston's work is flawless. Whose is? However, even if it is more > fraught with error and/or speculation than other work in the field, that > does not mean that it is pseudo-scholarship. > > Galen > > > ANTHONY APPLEYARD wrote: > > These two messages from this group: > > From: brokaw at buffalo.edu at Mon, 21 Jan 2008 22:47:33 -0500 > > From: bortiz at earthlink.net at Mon, 21 Jan 2008 18:27:01 -0500 (EST) > > both with title > > Re: [Nahuat-l] Aztec World Ages and the Calendar Stone > > reached me as a random jumble of characters, e.g.: > > "J???????("Z('?i??m??h??rj?k??^(R)?h????{^t ('? 1?br??u?. ?aj??r??j)?v" > > What mode were they input as? > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Nahuatl mailing list > > Nahuatl at lists.famsi.org > > http://www.famsi.org/mailman/listinfo/nahuatl > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > Nahuatl mailing list > Nahuatl at lists.famsi.org > http://www.famsi.org/mailman/listinfo/nahuatl > > -- Jeanne L. Gillespie, Ph.D. Associate Dean College of Arts and Letters The University of Southern Mississippi 601-266-4315 jeanne.gillespie at usm.edu -- Jeanne L. Gillespie, Ph.D. Associate Dean College of Arts and Letters The University of Southern Mississippi 601-266-4315 jeanne.gillespie at usm.edu -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- _______________________________________________ Nahuatl mailing list Nahuatl at lists.famsi.org http://www.famsi.org/mailman/listinfo/nahuatl From jrabasa at berkeley.edu Tue Jan 22 18:49:46 2008 From: jrabasa at berkeley.edu (=?iso-8859-1?Q?Jos=E9_Rabasa?=) Date: Tue, 22 Jan 2008 10:49:46 -0800 Subject: Fwd: Codes used for messages In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Dear All: As in Galen?s case, I have been a friend of Gordon for the last 30 years. Although I have not been his student in any formal way, I have learned from Gordon?s erudite knowledge of the ?literatures? of the Americas. I could not agree more with Jeanne's assessment of his scholarship. His ability to address a far range of texts spanning from Watunna to Navajo sand paintings and beyond is exceptional. His dedication to Mesoamerican studies has been a constant during all these years. His publications in numerous periodicals, including Estudios de Cultura Nahuatl, and the translation of Book of the Fourth World to Spanish, suggests that those in the editorial boards have not thought of Gordon as a pseudo-scholar. But perhaps Michel would want us to assume that the scholars who have recognized the merits of his work are deficient scholars that couldn?t identify the pseudo among them. To find theory lacking in someone who can cite Levi-Strauss, Jacobson, Derrida, Whorf, Sapir, Goffman among other great theoreticians of the 20th century in one breath, let alone dutifully read all that is published in Mesoamerican studies, implies either a lack of understanding of what theory is or just plain ignorance. We all make mistakes in theory, in factual matters, in etymologies as well as in faulty transcriptions and translations. But as I write ?we? I tremble to have the orthodox (Bernard's term) Mesoamerican thought police come after me. But, perhaps, Mesoamerican studies is defined by a doctrine that I ignore, and might be more ?clubby? than I expected. I rather view this exchange as an anomaly than as the general practice in this listing and in the interdisciplinary exchanges that make Mesoamerican studies an exciting field. Jose Rabasa > I agree with Galen, and I would like to add that in terms of the scholarly > minds Gordon has trained and inspired and the international scholars he > has > brought together for dialogue and sharing over the past twenty years, > Gordon > has been extremely influential among the international community of > thinkers > and analysts of Mesoamerican texts and their contexts. His work has > caused > many of us to reexamine a text for a specific purpose (including numerical > significance, place name relevance, geo-spatial information) that has led > to > further understanding of many of the canonical and non-canonical pictorial > (and alphabetic!) manuscripts. He has also helped students and scholars > have access to materials in libraries around the world not previously > available, and he is most generous in engaging in scholarly discussion and > debate about his work. I think you can contact him at his Essex email, ( > http://www.essex.ac.uk/literature/people/gordon_brotherston.htm) but > someone > may have a more up-to-date one. For questions about the calendar stone, I > suggest that you contact Emily Umberger at Arizona State and Cecelia Klein > at UCLA as well. > Jeanne > > > On Jan 22, 2008 8:47 AM, Galen Brokaw wrote: > >> Evidently both Bernard's post and my response were unreadable. I think >> Bernard accidentally reposted his message to Aztlan. I reposted mine >> again in response to his before I realized that it was going to Aztlan. >> I'll repost it here for anyone who is not subscribed to Aztlan: >> >> My main point here has to do with the way in which one engages in >> scholarly debate, not with the accuracy of Brotherston's work. Of >> course, the burden of proof of any given argument is on the claimant, >> but that includes the claimant who wishes to refute someone else's >> argument. Of course, such refutations can be made on both substantive >> and methodological grounds. It is perfectly legitimate to point out >> logical or methodological flaws that invalidate an argument, as Bernard >> seems to do. My point is that you can't just dismiss someone's work by >> merely asserting that it is fantasy. Bernard, it seems to me that your >> criticism engages with Brotherston's work in a perfectly legitimate way, >> and I have no problem with that. This type of engagement makes possible >> a responsible dialogue about substantive issues. For example, although I >> haven't searched for the passage that you cite in your message, just >> based on that quote in isolation, one could argue that your criticism of >> this statement is based on a misreading: it doesn't seem to me that >> Brotherston is claiming that "the Aztecs contrived their creation story >> so that one day in their 260 day ritual calendar would match the Spring >> Equinox of a year some 4700 years in the past." In the quote, he says >> that it "incidentally coincides" with the spring equinox. Saying that it >> is incidental by definition means that it was not contrived. In >> isolation at least, Brotherston's statement merely seems to be pointing >> out the fact that the systematicity of the calendar has certain >> incidental effects that contribute to our understanding of its >> systematicity. In the larger context of the quote, maybe there would be >> more to say. In the case of the serpents and the numerical significance >> of their dots, I don't have an answer. Maybe you have a valid criticism >> there. This is precisely the point, which is that we can discuss these >> things and disagree about them in substantive terms rather than >> dismissing them out of hand. As I said before, I'm not claiming that >> Brotherston's work is flawless. Whose is? However, even if it is more >> fraught with error and/or speculation than other work in the field, that >> does not mean that it is pseudo-scholarship. >> >> Galen >> >> >> ANTHONY APPLEYARD wrote: >> > These two messages from this group: >> > From: brokaw at buffalo.edu at Mon, 21 Jan 2008 22:47:33 -0500 >> > From: bortiz at earthlink.net at Mon, 21 Jan 2008 18:27:01 -0500 (EST) >> > both with title >> > Re: [Nahuat-l] Aztec World Ages and the Calendar Stone >> > reached me as a random jumble of characters, e.g.: >> > "J???????("Z('?i??m??h??rj?k??^(R)?h????{^t ('? 1?br??u?. >> ?aj??r??j)?v" >> > What mode were they input as? >> > >> > _______________________________________________ >> > Nahuatl mailing list >> > Nahuatl at lists.famsi.org >> > http://www.famsi.org/mailman/listinfo/nahuatl >> > >> > >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Nahuatl mailing list >> Nahuatl at lists.famsi.org >> http://www.famsi.org/mailman/listinfo/nahuatl >> >> > > > -- > Jeanne L. Gillespie, Ph.D. > Associate Dean > College of Arts and Letters > The University of Southern Mississippi > > 601-266-4315 > jeanne.gillespie at usm.edu > > > > -- > Jeanne L. Gillespie, Ph.D. > Associate Dean > College of Arts and Letters > The University of Southern Mississippi > > 601-266-4315 > jeanne.gillespie at usm.edu > _______________________________________________ > Nahuatl mailing list > Nahuatl at lists.famsi.org > http://www.famsi.org/mailman/listinfo/nahuatl > Jos? Rabasa Chair and Professor Department of Spanish and Portuguese UC Berkeley Berkeley, CA 94720-2590 Tel. 510-642-2105 Fax. 510-642-6957 _______________________________________________ Nahuatl mailing list Nahuatl at lists.famsi.org http://www.famsi.org/mailman/listinfo/nahuatl From oudyk at hotmail.com Wed Jan 23 00:37:33 2008 From: oudyk at hotmail.com (Michel Oudijk) Date: Wed, 23 Jan 2008 00:37:33 +0000 Subject: Codes used for messages In-Reply-To: <47960215.4030006@buffalo.edu> Message-ID: Dear All, I see that I made some people angry and some others nervous. This afternoon I decided to write a refutation of Brotherston's passage. However, tuning into my inbox I see that two more people are angry and so I will first say something about their messages and then give you what I wrote this afternoon. (Ah, I don't know what happened to the font style) Dear Jeanne and Jos?, I'm sorry to have hurt your feelings as far as your maestro Brotherston goes. I didn't mean to do so but I simply don't agree with what he writes. I have no doubts that he's a nice man who inspires others and who generously opens his library or gives away material for others to study. It seems to me that the idea that Brotherston 'has been extremely influential among the international community of thinkers and analysts of Mesoamerican texts and their contexts.', is highly exagerated. I feel he has published some useful things but in my opinion 'The Fourth World' is not one of these. The fact that he has published books is of course not at all a sign of significance or even importance. H.B. Nicholson's highly significant book was not published for 50 years, Troike's work on the Codex Colombino has never been published, Hill Boone's work on the Magliabecchi has never seen the light. On the other hand do I have a long list of book that, in my opinion, do not deserve the paper they are printed on (I'm not gonna give you that list of course as I'm making enough enemies as it is). Nor does the fact that Brotherston refers to important theoreticians mean anything. I receive many thesis of students who refer to many more theoreticians than most of us can list and their thesis aren't better for it. I would almost say on the contrary. The point of my commentary was and is that I think Brotherston's passage shows a dubious way of working with the Mesoamerican sources. That such an opinion isn't popular is another matter. This is not a beauty contest and I know that quite a few people out there think I'm a .......... anyway (fill in whatever you want). And maybe I am. However, that is not the point. Our goal is to understand Mesoamerican culture and history and so we should try to do this using sound methodologies, solid research, and open discussion. Once you've read my commentary, please do discuss it with people like Umberger and Klein. Ask their honest opinion about the passage. Maybe, or better put, probably they won't be as blunt as I am, but I doubt it they will agree with Brotherston's analysis and conclusions. So here what I wrote this afternoon: As I was foolish enough to respond to the initial message of Carl, I suppose I should argue my point. I do agree with Galen that in any academic discussion argumentation is the foundation of any progress we can make. Thing is that we often simply ignore what we think is outrageous cause we don?t want to waste our time with things that we think are not worth it. That is basically my opinion as far as Brotherston?s Fourth World goes: I don?t think it?s worth discussing it, cause it?s so far out that it would take two books to refute that one book. I, and others, simply don?t want to take that time cause we have other things to do than refuting other people's work. Furthermore, it's not very popular to speak your mind if it's not favorable. You make many enemies cause what is supposed to be an academic discussion is taken personally even though your argumentation is totally academic. The point of discussion is this one passage in Brotherston's book, but there are many, many more that I could pick. One thinks that others probably see what you see, well, turns out that this is not the case and since I was foolish enough to get caught in a silly discussion I better sing it out. I have to say that I only have the Spanish edition of the Fourth World (La Am?rica ind?gena en su literatura: Los libros del cuarto mundo, Fondo de Cultura Econ?mico, Mexico, 1997). So I will be as precise as I can as to the references to everybody can follow the discourse. So let?s look at Brotherston?s passage (pp 374-375, cap. XII, Escala Cronol?gica): "Just as the Era Four Ollin visually frames the proceeding four world ages at the center of the sunstone, so its length is recorded on the rim as we saw, in ten lots of ten Rounds I don?t have a clue as to why Brotherston would read these ?squared scales? as 10 lots of 10 rounds. But let's consider this a disagreement of interpretation. He clearly reads the 'squared scales' as bundles of years (xiuhmolpilli) and thus each square would represent 52 years. Then he counts the 10 dots in each square as a xiuhmolpilli arriving at 10 x 520 years. However, there aren't 10 xiuhmolpilli!!! There are at least 12 and I expect that 13 is meant. After the knot in the tail there is another xiuhmolpilli, and the leg and claw near the head covers another xiuhmolpilli yet clearly visible. So if these squares are actually xiuhmolpilli, we would have at least 6240 years and probably 6760. This, of course, does not at all agree with B.'s Era of 5200 years and therefore tears his 'model' down. But let's look at where B. got this 5200 year period from. He first mentions it on page 156 (chap. IV, La era) where he wants to prove the existence of such a period in Mesoamerica: ?El testimonio m?s antiguo que se conserve sobre la dataci?n de la Era en Mesoam?rica puede encontrarse en inscripciones olmecas, que se colocan por la edad de Cristo, contando unidades de tiempo a partir del a?o 3113 a.C. (figura IV.7)? There is not one piece of evidence that relates any Olmec year with 3113 a.C. and obviously B. does not give any references. For one thing, it would imply that the Olmec used a Long Count, which is not at all known. B.'s figure is a list of years/chronology constructed from information in the ?Anales de Tepexic? which is better known as the Codex Vindobonensis. These years are totally unacceptable and no scholar working with the Vindobonensis or any other Mixtec pictorial even refers to B.?s chronology simply because they don?t want to get into a useless discussion (or like Galen said, you rather ignore them if you don't believe in them). See Anders, Jansen & P?rez Jim?nez (1992) or Furst (1978) for two of the main commentaries of the Vindobonensis. Then B. explains the Maya calendar saying the Maya adopted the calendar from the Olmec, another unproven statement and without any reference. B. continues: ?Por su estructura misma, este calendario tun de las tierras bajas genera una Era de trece baktunes, lo que movi? a algunos estudiosos a anunciar una fecha final en 2012 d.C., E.M. 13.0.0, 5200 (o 13 x 400) tunes a partir de 3113 a.C. De especial inter?s es el testimonio del Libro de Chilam Balam de Tizimin, el cual da informes sobre la reforma calend?rica del siglo XVIII que condujo a una aproximaci?n general entre el tun y el a?o solar de los cristianos. Aqu?, la fecha final calculada es 2088 d.C.: 5200 a?os solares, no 5200 tunes, a aprtir de 3113 a.C? The Maya Long Count does not have 3113 a.C. as its beginning but rather August 11, 3114 a.C. which obviously doesn?t agree with B?s suggested Olmec year which is probably why he made this ?mistake?. This period of 5200 years and particularly the end of it, is based on the works of Jos? Arg?elles, the well known New Age guru and founder of the Planet Art Network organization. Anybody who would like to know more about him can google him and have access to multiple pages. No serious Mayanist however takes him, his 5200 year Era, or his prophecies seriously. The reference to the Chilam Balam of Tizimin is vague. There is no page or folio number, nothing. This is a major problem in the whole of the 'Fourth World' where the historical sources are used without any kind of reference, basically making virtually impossible to verify the statements. In this particular case I cannot check B. on his date. So let's continue the text: "Este mismo periodo de 5200 a?os se atribuye al actual Sol o Era en la tradici?n ic?nica, calculado como 13 tzontli (400) de a?os. o como 100 Ruedas de 52 a?os. Como 100 Ruedas aparece en la Piedra del Sol de Tenochtitlan, y fue transcrito a las historias nahuas de Cuauhtitlan y de Chalco (la fuente de Chimalpahin, y despu?s de Boturini), mientras que el Manuscrito de las Pinturas habla de un medio Sol, medido aproximadamente como 50 Ruedas (2600 a?os) en esa fuente y en la Leyenda de los Soles." We have established that the 100 Rounds don't exist in the Sun Stone. The consequence of the non-existence of the 100 Rounds makes the suggestion that half a sun would be 50 rounds, and consequently 2600 years, invalid. The references to the Anales de Cuauhtitlan and Chimalpahin are more than vague and I simply can't check them. "En el cap?tulo inicial del C?dice R?os, aparece como 13 unidades de turquesa peludas (con tzontli = 400) que son cuidadosamente interpretadas como de quattro centi anni por el copista italiano (v?ase figura XII.4b). Al hacer coincidir en a?os el periodo jerogl?fico de 5200 tunes, los textos ic?nicos tambi?n se remiten a la misma fecha b?sica, se?alada por Chimalpahin en fechas cercanas a 3000 a.C. (S?ptima Relaci?n), y declarada con precisi?n en la Piedra del Sol y en los Anales de Tepexic como el a?o 13 Ca?a (3113 a.C.)" B. refers here to folio 7r C?dice Vaticano A, also known as the Codex R?os. Here is represented the era of Xochiquetzal which in this Codex is considered to be the fourth era or Sun but other sources give other information (see the Leyenda de los Soles, Anales de Cuauhtitlan, the Histoyre du Mechique, and the Historia de los mexicanos por su pinturas). Here we indeed see 13 xihuitl or years with tzontli which mean 400. This would be an example of a 5200 years period were it not that B. forgot to count the 6 dots above these xihuitl which means the page depicts 5206 years. Curiously the Italian text refers to 5042 years. So again there is no evidence for a 5200 years period. The other three eras registered in the Vaticano A don't help much either as they are 4008, 4010, and 5004 years respectively. Again B. turns to Chimalpahin and this time with what may be considered a reference: the 7th Relaci?n. Again no page nor folio and so we're lost again, particularly since the 7th is the longest of the 8 relaciones. It may be clear by now that the fact that the Sun Stone or the Vindobonensis give the year 13-Reed is no evidence whatsoever of a year 3113 (which should be 3114). After all, if there is no 5200 year period the year 13-Reed may refer to any 13-Reed year from 1479 counting backwards. "imaged as cloud-snakes that issue from the squared scales of sky dragons to right and left. Now as we noted above, the heads peering from the dragons' maws below belong respectively to Fire Lord (left) and the Sun (right), who are One and Four in the set of thirteen Heroes." Whether these serpents are fire-serpents or cloud-serpents is a minor detail considering what is yet to come and so I will not detain myself on this point. The heads in the maws of the serpents are indeed Xiuhtecuhtli, the God of Fire, and Tonatiuh, the Sun. In the Codex Borbonicus and the Histoyre? these two gods are in the 1st and 4th position in a list of gods associated with the 13 numerals but I don't know where the name of the 'thirteen Heroes' comes from. "Hence, each endows its dragon and the Rounds on its back with number value, a capacity they and others among them display, for example, in the Pinturas transcription of the world-age story. As One, Fire Lord simply confirms the 5,200-year total; as Four, Sun multiples it to 20,800 to the remaining four-fifths of the Great Year [26,000 years]. Hence: 1x10x10x52=5,2004x10x10x52=20,800 26,000" This is where the numerology starts. B. seems to think that since Xiuhtecuhtli and Tonatiuh are in the 1st and 4th position of the somewhat obscure list of the lord of the numerals, he can now multiply the years supposedly represented in the 'squared scales' by their position. How does this work methodologically? Which source gives us the information that we can do so? B. again gives a vague reference to justify his actions: "the Pinturas transcription of the world-age story". Of course, this is not a reference nor any justification for doing such tricks with the Mesoamerican sources. "In the Cuauhtitlan Annals transcription of the Sunstone cosmogony, the four-fifths of the Great Year is noted as "CCCCC mixcoa," that is, four hundred cloud-snake rounds." The same story here: no reference, no context. Nothing!! In any academic discourse one has to give his sources and make logical steps in any analysis. Brotherston is far from it. That's all folks, Michel Anders, Ferdinand; Maarten Jansen & Gabina Aurora P?rez Jim?nez Origen e historia de los reyes mixtecos. Libro explicativo del llamado C?dice Vindobonensis. Sociedad Estatal Quinto Centenario/ADEVA/Fondo de Cultura Econ?mica, Madrid/Graz/Mexico, 1992 Furst, Jill Codex Vindobonensis Mexicanus I: A Commentary. Institute of Mesoamerican Studies, SUNY, Albany, 1978. > Date: Tue, 22 Jan 2008 09:47:49 -0500> From: brokaw at buffalo.edu> To: a.appleyard at btinternet.com> CC: nahuatl at lists.famsi.org> Subject: Re: [Nahuat-l] Codes used for messages> > Evidently both Bernard's post and my response were unreadable. I think > Bernard accidentally reposted his message to Aztlan. I reposted mine > again in response to his before I realized that it was going to Aztlan. > I'll repost it here for anyone who is not subscribed to Aztlan:> > My main point here has to do with the way in which one engages in > scholarly debate, not with the accuracy of Brotherston's work. Of > course, the burden of proof of any given argument is on the claimant, > but that includes the claimant who wishes to refute someone else's > argument. Of course, such refutations can be made on both substantive > and methodological grounds. It is perfectly legitimate to point out > logical or methodological flaws that invalidate an argument, as Bernard > seems to do. My point is that you can't just dismiss someone's work by > merely asserting that it is fantasy. Bernard, it seems to me that your > criticism engages with Brotherston's work in a perfectly legitimate way, > and I have no problem with that. This type of engagement makes possible > a responsible dialogue about substantive issues. For example, although I > haven't searched for the passage that you cite in your message, just > based on that quote in isolation, one could argue that your criticism of > this statement is based on a misreading: it doesn't seem to me that > Brotherston is claiming that "the Aztecs contrived their creation story > so that one day in their 260 day ritual calendar would match the Spring > Equinox of a year some 4700 years in the past." In the quote, he says > that it "incidentally coincides" with the spring equinox. Saying that it > is incidental by definition means that it was not contrived. In > isolation at least, Brotherston's statement merely seems to be pointing > out the fact that the systematicity of the calendar has certain > incidental effects that contribute to our understanding of its > systematicity. In the larger context of the quote, maybe there would be > more to say. In the case of the serpents and the numerical significance > of their dots, I don't have an answer. Maybe you have a valid criticism > there. This is precisely the point, which is that we can discuss these > things and disagree about them in substantive terms rather than > dismissing them out of hand. As I said before, I'm not claiming that > Brotherston's work is flawless. Whose is? However, even if it is more > fraught with error and/or speculation than other work in the field, that > does not mean that it is pseudo-scholarship.> > Galen> > > ANTHONY APPLEYARD wrote:> > These two messages from this group:> > From: brokaw at buffalo.edu at Mon, 21 Jan 2008 22:47:33 -0500> > From: bortiz at earthlink.net at Mon, 21 Jan 2008 18:27:01 -0500 (EST)> > both with title> > Re: [Nahuat-l] Aztec World Ages and the Calendar Stone> > reached me as a random jumble of characters, e.g.:> > "J???????("Z(??i??m??h??rj?k??^??h????{^t(??1?br??u?.??aj??r??j)?v"> > What mode were they input as?> > > > _______________________________________________> > Nahuatl mailing list> > Nahuatl at lists.famsi.org> > http://www.famsi.org/mailman/listinfo/nahuatl> > > > > _________________________________________________________________ Express yourself instantly with MSN Messenger! Download today it's FREE! http://messenger.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200471ave/direct/01/ -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- _______________________________________________ Nahuatl mailing list Nahuatl at lists.famsi.org http://www.famsi.org/mailman/listinfo/nahuatl From brokaw at buffalo.edu Wed Jan 23 03:18:54 2008 From: brokaw at buffalo.edu (brokaw at buffalo.edu) Date: Tue, 22 Jan 2008 22:18:54 -0500 Subject: Codes used for messages In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Michel, First, let me just say that I don't think that you have made anyone angry or nervous. And I certainly don't think that you have made any enemies here. As I said in my message, I have nothing personal against you, and I think that I know Jeanne and Jose well enough to say that they don't either. I don't think anybody will have a personal problem with the kind of criticism that you direct at the passage from Brotherston's book in your post below. This is the kind of substantive critique that we all expect and appreciate, and I don't think Jeanne or Jose, or any other serious scholar, will hold anything against you for it merely because of their personal friendship with Gordon. So, peace and love all around :-), Galen Quoting Michel Oudijk : > > Dear All, > > I see that I made some people angry and some others nervous. This > afternoon> I decided to write a refutation of Brotherston's passage. However, > tuning > into my inbox I see that two more people are angry and so I will > first say > something about their messages and then give you what I wrote this > afternoo> n. > (Ah, I don't know what happened to the font style) > > Dear Jeanne and Jos?, > > I'm sorry to have hurt your feelings as far as your maestro > Brotherston goe> s. I didn't mean to do so but I simply don't agree with what he > writes. I h> ave no doubts that he's a nice man who inspires others and who > generously o> pens his library or gives away material for others to study. It seems > to me> that the idea that Brotherston 'has been extremely influential among > the i> nternational community of thinkers and analysts of Mesoamerican texts > and t> heir contexts.', is highly exagerated. I feel he has published some > useful > things but in my opinion 'The Fourth World' is not one of these. The > fact t> hat he has published books is of course not at all a sign of > significance o> r even importance. H.B. Nicholson's highly significant book was not > publish> ed for 50 years, Troike's work on the Codex Colombino has never been > publis> hed, Hill Boone's work on the Magliabecchi has never seen the light. > On the> other hand do I have a long list of book that, in my opinion, do not > deser> ve the paper they are printed on (I'm not gonna give you that list of > cours> e as I'm making enough enemies as it is). Nor does the fact that > Brothersto> n refers to important theoreticians mean anything. I receive many > thesis of> students who refer to many more theoreticians than most of us can > list and> their thesis aren't better for it. I would almost say on the > contrary. > The point of my commentary was and is that I think Brotherston's > passage sh> ows a dubious way of working with the Mesoamerican sources. That such > an op> inion isn't popular is another matter. This is not a beauty contest > and I k> now that quite a few people out there think I'm a .......... anyway > (fill i> n whatever you want). And maybe I am. However, that is not the point. > Our g> oal is to understand Mesoamerican culture and history and so we > should try > to do this using sound methodologies, solid research, and open > discussion. > Once you've read my commentary, please do discuss it with people like > Umber> ger and Klein. Ask their honest opinion about the passage. Maybe, or > better> put, probably they won't be as blunt as I am, but I doubt it they > will agr> ee with Brotherston's analysis and conclusions. > > So here what I wrote this afternoon: > > As I was foolish enough to respond to the initial message of Carl, I > suppos> e I should argue my point. I do agree with Galen that in any academic > discu> ssion argumentation is the foundation of any progress we can make. > Thing is> that we often simply ignore what we think is outrageous cause we > don?t w> ant to waste our time with things that we think are not worth it. > That is b> asically my opinion as far as Brotherston?s Fourth World goes: I > don?t > think it?s worth discussing it, cause it?s so far out that it > would tak> e two books to refute that one book. I, and others, simply don?t > want to > take that time cause we have other things to do than refuting other > people'> s work. Furthermore, it's not very popular to speak your mind if it's > not f> avorable. You make many enemies cause what is supposed to be an > academic di> scussion is taken personally even though your argumentation is > totally acad> emic. > The point of discussion is this one passage in Brotherston's book, > but ther> e are many, many more that I could pick. One thinks that others > probably se> e what you see, well, turns out that this is not the case and since I > was f> oolish enough to get caught in a silly discussion I better sing it > out. > > I have to say that I only have the Spanish edition of the Fourth > World (La > Am?rica ind?gena en su literatura: Los libros del cuarto mundo, > Fondo d> e Cultura Econ?mico, Mexico, 1997). So I will be as precise as I > can as t> o the references to everybody can follow the discourse. > > So let?s look at Brotherston?s passage (pp 374-375, cap. XII, > Escala Cr> onol?gica): > > "Just as the Era Four Ollin visually frames the proceeding four world > ages> at the center of the sunstone, so its length is recorded on the rim > as we > saw, in ten lots of ten Rounds > > I don?t have a clue as to why Brotherston would read these > ?squared sca> les? as 10 lots of 10 rounds. But let's consider this a > disagreement of i> nterpretation. He clearly reads the 'squared scales' as bundles of > years (x> iuhmolpilli) and thus each square would represent 52 years. Then he > counts > the 10 dots in each square as a xiuhmolpilli arriving at 10 x 520 > years. Ho> wever, there aren't 10 xiuhmolpilli!!! There are at least 12 and I > expect t> hat 13 is meant. After the knot in the tail there is another > xiuhmolpilli, > and the leg and claw near the head covers another xiuhmolpilli yet > clearly > visible. So if these squares are actually xiuhmolpilli, we would have > at le> ast 6240 years and probably 6760. This, of course, does not at all > agree wi> th B.'s Era of 5200 years and therefore tears his 'model' down. > But let's look at where B. got this 5200 year period from. He first > mention> s it on page 156 (chap. IV, La era) where he wants to prove the > existence o> f such a period in Mesoamerica: > > ?El testimonio m?s antiguo que se conserve sobre la dataci?n de > la Er> a en Mesoam?rica puede encontrarse en inscripciones olmecas, que se > coloc> an por la edad de Cristo, contando unidades de tiempo a partir del > a?o 31> 13 a.C. (figura IV.7)? > > There is not one piece of evidence that relates any Olmec year with > 3113 a.> C. and obviously B. does not give any references. For one thing, it > would i> mply that the Olmec used a Long Count, which is not at all known. > B.'s figu> re is a list of years/chronology constructed from information in the > ?Ana> les de Tepexic? which is better known as the Codex Vindobonensis. > These y> ears are totally unacceptable and no scholar working with the > Vindobonensis> or any other Mixtec pictorial even refers to B.?s chronology > simply beca> use they don?t want to get into a useless discussion (or like Galen > said,> you rather ignore them if you don't believe in them). See Anders, > Jansen &> P?rez Jim?nez (1992) or Furst (1978) for two of the main > commentaries > of the Vindobonensis. > Then B. explains the Maya calendar saying the Maya adopted the > calendar fro> m the Olmec, another unproven statement and without any reference. B. > conti> nues: > > ?Por su estructura misma, este calendario tun de las tierras bajas > genera> una Era de trece baktunes, lo que movi? a algunos estudiosos a > anunciar > una fecha final en 2012 d.C., E.M. 13.0.0, 5200 (o 13 x 400) tunes a > partir> de 3113 a.C. De especial inter?s es el testimonio del Libro de > Chilam Ba> lam de Tizimin, el cual da informes sobre la reforma calend?rica > del sigl> o XVIII que condujo a una aproximaci?n general entre el tun y el > a?o so> lar de los cristianos. Aqu?, la fecha final calculada es 2088 d.C.: > 5200 > a?os solares, no 5200 tunes, a aprtir de 3113 a.C? > > The Maya Long Count does not have 3113 a.C. as its beginning but > rather Aug> ust 11, 3114 a.C. which obviously doesn?t agree with B?s > suggested Olme> c year which is probably why he made this ?mistake?. This period > of 520> 0 years and particularly the end of it, is based on the works of > Jos? Arg> ?elles, the well known New Age guru and founder of the Planet Art > Network> organization. Anybody who would like to know more about him can > google him> and have access to multiple pages. No serious Mayanist however takes > him, > his 5200 year Era, or his prophecies seriously. > The reference to the Chilam Balam of Tizimin is vague. There is no > page or > folio number, nothing. This is a major problem in the whole of the > 'Fourth > World' where the historical sources are used without any kind of > reference,> basically making virtually impossible to verify the statements. In > this pa> rticular case I cannot check B. on his date. > So let's continue the text: > > "Este mismo periodo de 5200 a?os se atribuye al actual Sol o Era en > la tr> adici?n ic?nica, calculado como 13 tzontli (400) de a?os. o > como 100 > Ruedas de 52 a?os. Como 100 Ruedas aparece en la Piedra del Sol de > Tenoch> titlan, y fue transcrito a las historias nahuas de Cuauhtitlan y de > Chalco > (la fuente de Chimalpahin, y despu?s de Boturini), mientras que el > Manusc> rito de las Pinturas habla de un medio Sol, medido aproximadamente > como 50 > Ruedas (2600 a?os) en esa fuente y en la Leyenda de los Soles." > > We have established that the 100 Rounds don't exist in the Sun Stone. > The c> onsequence of the non-existence of the 100 Rounds makes the > suggestion that> half a sun would be 50 rounds, and consequently 2600 years, invalid. > The r> eferences to the Anales de Cuauhtitlan and Chimalpahin are more than > vague > and I simply can't check them. > > "En el cap?tulo inicial del C?dice R?os, aparece como 13 > unidades de > turquesa peludas (con tzontli > interpretadas> como de quattro centi anni por el copista italiano (v?ase figura > XII.4b)> . Al hacer coincidir en a?os el periodo jerogl?fico de 5200 > tunes, los > textos ic?nicos tambi?n se remiten a la misma fecha b?sica, > se?alad> a por Chimalpahin en fechas cercanas a 3000 a.C. (S?ptima > Relaci?n), y > declarada con precisi?n en la Piedra del Sol y en los Anales de > Tepexic c> omo el a?o 13 Ca?a (3113 a.C.)" > > B. refers here to folio 7r C?dice Vaticano A, also known as the > Codex R> ?os. Here is represented the era of Xochiquetzal which in this > Codex is c> onsidered to be the fourth era or Sun but other sources give other > informat> ion (see the Leyenda de los Soles, Anales de Cuauhtitlan, the > Histoyre du M> echique, and the Historia de los mexicanos por su pinturas). Here we > indeed> see 13 xihuitl or years with tzontli which mean 400. This would be > an exam> ple of a 5200 years period were it not that B. forgot to count the 6 > dots a> bove these xihuitl which means the page depicts 5206 years. Curiously > the I> talian text refers to 5042 years. So again there is no evidence for a > 5200 > years period. The other three eras registered in the Vaticano A don't > help > much either as they are 4008, 4010, and 5004 years respectively. > Again B. t> urns to Chimalpahin and this time with what may be considered a > reference: > the 7th Relaci?n. Again no page nor folio and so we're lost again, > partic> ularly since the 7th is the longest of the 8 relaciones. It may be > clear by> now that the fact that the Sun Stone or the Vindobonensis give the > year 13> -Reed is no evidence whatsoever of a year 3113 (which should be > 3114). Afte> r all, if there is no 5200 year period the year 13-Reed may refer to > any 13> -Reed year from 1479 counting backwards. > > "imaged as cloud-snakes that issue from the squared scales of sky > dragons t> o right and left. Now as we noted above, the heads peering from the > dragons> ' maws below belong respectively to Fire Lord (left) and the Sun > (right), w> ho are One and Four in the set of thirteen Heroes." > > Whether these serpents are fire-serpents or cloud-serpents is a minor > detai> l considering what is yet to come and so I will not detain myself on > this p> oint. The heads in the maws of the serpents are indeed Xiuhtecuhtli, > the Go> d of Fire, and Tonatiuh, the Sun. In the Codex Borbonicus and the > Histoyre> these two gods are in the 1st and 4th position in a list of gods > associ> ated with the 13 numerals but I don't know where the name of the > 'thirteen > Heroes' comes from. > > "Hence, each endows its dragon and the Rounds on its back with number > value> , a capacity they and others among them display, for example, in the > Pintur> as transcription of the world-age story. As One, Fire Lord simply > confirms > the 5,200-year total; as Four, Sun multiples it to 20,800 to the > remaining > four-fifths of the Great Year [26,000 years]. Hence: > 1x10x10x52R004x10x10x52 ,800 26,000" > This is where the numerology starts. B. seems to think that since > Xiuhtecuh> tli and Tonatiuh are in the 1st and 4th position of the somewhat > obscure li> st of the lord of the numerals, he can now multiply the years > supposedly re> presented in the 'squared scales' by their position. How does this > work met> hodologically? Which source gives us the information that we can do > so? B. > again gives a vague reference to justify his actions: "the Pinturas > transcr> iption of the world-age story". Of course, this is not a reference > nor any > justification for doing such tricks with the Mesoamerican sources. > "In the Cuauhtitlan Annals transcription of the Sunstone cosmogony, > the fo> ur-fifths of the Great Year is noted as "CCCCC mixcoa," that is, four > hund> red cloud-snake rounds." > > The same story here: no reference, no context. Nothing!! In any > academic di> scourse one has to give his sources and make logical steps in any > analysis.> Brotherston is far from it. > > > That's all folks, > > Michel > > > > > Anders, Ferdinand; Maarten Jansen & Gabina Aurora P?rez Jim?nez > Origen e historia de los reyes mixtecos. Libro explicativo del > llamado C?> dice Vindobonensis. Sociedad Estatal Quinto Centenario/ADEVA/Fondo de > Cultu> ra Econ?mica, Madrid/Graz/Mexico, 1992 > > Furst, Jill > Codex Vindobonensis Mexicanus I: A Commentary. Institute of > Mesoamerican St> udies, SUNY, Albany, 1978. > > > Date: Tue, 22 Jan 2008 09:47:49 -0500> From: brokaw at buffalo.edu> > To: a.ap> pleyard at btinternet.com> CC: nahuatl at lists.famsi.org> Subject: Re: > [Nahuat-l> ] Codes used for messages> > Evidently both Bernard's post and my > response > were unreadable. I think > Bernard accidentally reposted his message > to Azt> lan. I reposted mine > again in response to his before I realized > that it w> as going to Aztlan. > I'll repost it here for anyone who is not > subscribed > to Aztlan:> > My main point here has to do with the way in which one > engage> s in > scholarly debate, not with the accuracy of Brotherston's work. > Of > > course, the burden of proof of any given argument is on the claimant, > > but> that includes the claimant who wishes to refute someone else's > > argument.> Of course, such refutations can be made on both substantive > and > methodol> ogical grounds. It is perfectly legitimate to point out > logical or > method> ological flaws that invalidate an argument, as Bernard > seems to do. > My po> int is that you can't just dismiss someone's work by > merely > asserting tha> t it is fantasy. Bernard, it seems to me that your > criticism > engages with> Brotherston's work in a perfectly legitimate way, > and I have no > problem > with that. This type of engagement makes possible > a responsible > dialogue > about substantive issues. For example, although I > haven't searched > for th> e passage that you cite in your message, just > based on that quote > in isol> ation, one could argue that your criticism of > this statement is > based on > a misreading: it doesn't seem to me that > Brotherston is claiming > that "th> e Aztecs contrived their creation story > so that one day in their > 260 day > ritual calendar would match the Spring > Equinox of a year some 4700 > years > in the past." In the quote, he says > that it "incidentally > coincides" with> the spring equinox. Saying that it > is incidental by definition > means tha> t it was not contrived. In > isolation at least, Brotherston's > statement me> rely seems to be pointing > out the fact that the systematicity of > the cale> ndar has certain > incidental effects that contribute to our > understanding > of its > systematicity. In the larger context of the quote, maybe > there wou> ld be > more to say. In the case of the serpents and the numerical > signific> ance > of their dots, I don't have an answer. Maybe you have a valid > critic> ism > there. This is precisely the point, which is that we can > discuss thes> e > things and disagree about them in substantive terms rather than > > dismi> ssing them out of hand. As I said before, I'm not claiming that > > Brotherst> on's work is flawless. Whose is? However, even if it is more > > fraught with> error and/or speculation than other work in the field, that > does > not mea> n that it is pseudo-scholarship.> > Galen> > > ANTHONY APPLEYARD > wrote:> > > These two messages from this group:> > From: brokaw at buffalo.edu at > Mon, 21 > Jan 2008 22:47:33 -0500> > From: bortiz at earthlink.net at Mon, 21 Jan > 2008 1> 8:27:01 -0500 (EST)> > both with title> > Re: [Nahuat-l] Aztec World > Ages a> nd the Calendar Stone> > reached me as a random jumble of characters, > e.g.:> > > > "J???????("Z(??i??m??h??rj?k??^?> ?h????{^t(??1?br??u?.??aj??r??j)?> v"> > What mode were they input as?> > > > > ________________________________> _______________> > Nahuatl mailing list> > Nahuatl at lists.famsi.org> > > http:> //www.famsi.org/mailman/listinfo/nahuatl> > > > > > _________________________________________________________________ > Express yourself instantly with MSN Messenger! Download today it's > FREE! > http://messenger.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200471ave/direct/01/> _______________________________________________ Nahuatl mailing list Nahuatl at lists.famsi.org http://www.famsi.org/mailman/listinfo/nahuatl From arnibionic at yahoo.de Wed Jan 23 12:26:58 2008 From: arnibionic at yahoo.de (=?iso-8859-1?q?Arnd=20S=F6lling?=) Date: Wed, 23 Jan 2008 13:26:58 +0100 Subject: Incorporation in Nahua Dialects Message-ID: Listeros, I'm researching on the Nahua Dialects and my interest is about noun incorporation as in the hierarchy established 1984: The Evolution of Noun Incorporation by Marianne Mithun. I've read in Hill, J. & K. 1986: Speaking Mexicano that productive incorporation is active in the peripheral dialects like the Huasteca area, whereas in the central dialects such as in Puebla (called Malinche Mexicano by the authors) incorporation only appears fossilized. My question would now be if anyone knows about a dialect that lies in between those two extremes; maybe a dialect that only uses lexical compounding but no more generically referring constructions (as in Mithun's Type III); or one that uses a classificatory incorporating system (Type IV) but no referring one... Many thanks in advance, Arnd S?lling --------------------------------- Ihr erstes Baby? Holen Sie sich Tipps von anderen Eltern. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- _______________________________________________ Nahuatl mailing list Nahuatl at lists.famsi.org http://www.famsi.org/mailman/listinfo/nahuatl From arnibionic at yahoo.de Wed Jan 23 12:35:55 2008 From: arnibionic at yahoo.de (=?iso-8859-1?q?Arnd=20S=F6lling?=) Date: Wed, 23 Jan 2008 13:35:55 +0100 Subject: Incorporation in Nahua Dialects Message-ID: Listeros, I'm researching on the Nahua Dialects and my interest is about noun incorporation as in the hierarchy established 1984: The Evolution of Noun Incorporation by Marianne Mithun. I've read in Hill, J. & K. 1986: Speaking Mexicano that productive incorporation is active in the peripheral dialects like the Huasteca area, whereas in the central dialects such as in Puebla (called Malinche Mexicano by the authors) incorporation only appears fossilized. My question would now be if anyone knows about a dialect that lies in between those two extremes; maybe a dialect that only uses lexical compounding but no more generically referring constructions (as in Mithun's Type III); or one that uses a classificatory incorporating system (Type IV) but no referring one... Many thanks in advance, Arnd S?lling --------------------------------- Ihr erstes Fernweh? Wo gibt es den sch?nsten Strand. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- _______________________________________________ Nahuatl mailing list Nahuatl at lists.famsi.org http://www.famsi.org/mailman/listinfo/nahuatl From idiez at mac.com Thu Jan 24 00:37:16 2008 From: idiez at mac.com (John Sullivan, Ph.D.) Date: Wed, 23 Jan 2008 18:37:16 -0600 Subject: 2008 Summer Nahuatl Program in Zacatecas/Veracruz Message-ID: Listeros, I am happy to announce our Summer 2008 "Intensive course in Older and Modern Nahuatl for non-native speakers" (June 23 to August 1). The course description appears below in English and Spanish and can be downloaded at http://www.idiez.org.mx and http://www.macehualli.org John John Sullivan, Ph.D. Professor of Nahua language and culture Universidad Aut?noma de Zacatecas Zacatecas Institute of Teaching and Research in Ethnology Tacuba 152, int. 47 Centro Hist?rico Zacatecas, Zac. 98000 Mexico Work: +52 (492) 925-3415 Fax: +52 (492) 925-3416 Home: +52 (492) 768-6048 Mobile: +52 (492) 118-0854 idiez at mac.com www.idiez.org.mx Macehualli Educational Research the Zacatecas Institute for Teaching and Research in Ethnology, and the Language Center of the Universidad Aut?noma de Zacatecas Intensive course in Older and Modern Nahuatl for non-native speakers Summer 2008 (June 23 to August 1) Instructors: John Sullivan, Ph.D., Lic. Delfina de la Cruz, and indigenous teaching assistants. General objectives 1. Develop students' oral comprehension, speaking, reading, writing, knowledge of language structure, as well as their cultural wisdom and sensibility, in order to facilitate their ability to communicate effectively, correctly and creatively in everyday situations. 2. Provide students with instruments and experiences which demonstrate the continuity between past and present Nahua culture, through the study of colonial and modern texts, conversation with native speakers, and a residency in a Nahua community. 3. Penetrate into the historical, economic, political, social and cultural aspects of Nahua civilization. 4. Prepare students to take university level humanities courses taught in Nahuatl alongside native speakers. 5. Provide students the opportunity to work on a research project in collaboration with one or more native speakers of Nahuatl. Registration requirements: 1. Copy of birth certificate or CURP for Mexicans. Copy of passport for foreigners (student visa is not necessary). 2. two credential-size photographs Academic credit: Academic credit for 140 hours is issued in the form of an official transcript through the Language Center of the Universidad Aut?noma de Zacatecas. Testing: 1. Beginning students' progress will be evaluated in three categories: 40%, three tests on Older Nahuatl (grammar and translation). 40%, three tests on Modern Nahuatl (oral comprehension, speech production, reading, writing, and grammar). 20%, research report. 2. Intermediate students' progress will be evaluated in three categories: 40%, three tests on Older Nahuatl (grammar, transcription, translation, and commentary). 40%, three tests on Modern Nahuatl (reading, writing, and grammar) 20%, research report. 3. Advanced students' will be evaluated based on their research paper written in Modern Nahuatl. Calendar and activities: There will be six weeks of work from June 23 to August 1, 2008, for a total of 142.5 hours. The academic activities will be distributed according to the following four components: 1. OLDER NAHUATL Students will meet two hours per day, five days per week during five weeks at the Institute in Zacatecas, in order to study Older Nahuatl. a). Students at the beginner's level will work on chapters one through eight of James Lockhart's Nahuatl as Written, and will translate some elementary selections of colonial texts. b). Students at the intermediate level will work on chapters nine through sixteen of James Lockhart's Nahuatl as Written, and will begin to transcribe, translate and comment colonial manuscripts. c). Students at the advanced level will work exclusively on the transcription, analysis and commentary of colonial manuscripts. Materials for the Older Nahuatl component: All students must have personal copies of the following texts: 1. Karttunen, Francis. 1983. An Analytical Dictionary of Nahuatl. Texas Linguistics Series. Austin: University of Texas Press. 2. Lockhart, James. 2001. Nahuatl as Written. Lessons in Older Written Nahuatl, with Copious Examples and Texts. Stanford: Stanford University Press. 3. Molina, Alonso de. 1977(1555-1571). Vocabulario en lengua castellana y mexicana y mexicana y castellana. Colecci?n ?Biblioteca Porr?a? 44. M?xico: Porr?a. In addition, all students will receive, free of charge, exercise manuals, grammar charts and vocabulary lists, as well as photocopies and digitalized images of the manuscripts which will be studied. 2. MODERN NAHUATL Students will meet two and one half hours per day, five days per week during the first five weeks of the course, and one hour per day during the sixth week, in order to study Modern Nahuatl with a native- speaking professor. Beginning level: The first two weeks will entail an immersion experience, in which students will learn to converse in Nahuatl without the use of translations or grammar. This component is based on the early methodology of linguists Stephen Krashen and Tracy Terrell, and will conclude with a listening comprehension and oral production test. During a second two-week phase, students will continue with the previous conversation activities. In addition, they will be introduced to the writing system and the three basic grammatical structures: the noun, verb, and relational phrases. The grammar studies will be based on a series of charts and written exercises developed by the professors. This stage will conclude with a conversation exam and a written exam on the writing system and the grammar. During the final two-week period, students will begin to read Modern Nahuatl texts, emphasizing comprehension. A basic bilingual vocabulary prepared by the professors will be used, and the course will end with a reading comprehension test. Intermediate level: Durante the six weeks of the course, students will read, analyze and comment, both orally and in writing, diverse Modern Nahuatl texts. In addition, they will study some complex linguistic structures. Advanced level: Students will research, en collaboration with the Institute's professors, a topic of Nahua culture, basing their work on older written sources, or on modern sources, be they oral or written. They will write a short paper in modern Nahuatl on this topic. 3. INDIVIDUAL RESEARCH IN COLLABORATION WITH NATIVE SPEAKERS Each student will meet with a native speaker one hour per day during the five weeks in Zacatecas, in order to work on an individual research project dealing with some aspect of nahua language or culture. For this reason, and before being admitted to the program, each student will need to submit a proposal of the project they would like to work on. The personnel at IDIEZ will advise prospective students on this process before course registration. Students may propose individual or group research projects, including thesis and dissertation research, or they may participate in any of the projects in which IDIEZ is currently involved. For example, we are preparing the first monolingual dictionary of the Nahuatl language. All students will prepare and turn in a research report at the end of the course. 4. RESIDENCY IN THE HUASTECA REGION On Saturday, July 26, we will travel to Tepecxitla, Veracruz where we will remain until August 1. Each student will live with a Nahua family and participate in daily activities, including the preparation and execution of the Chicomexochitl ceremony. We will also continue with formal instruction in conversation, reading and writing in Modern Nahuatl. Cost: The cost of the program is: 1. US$2400 for tuition. 2. US$1100-1300 for transportation, room and board for six weeks. The difference depends on the room and board options during the five-week stay in Zacatecas. These include an individual or shared room in a hostal, and an individual room in a rented house shared with other students. 3. Not included are the Lockhart, Molina, and Karttunen texts, and the round trip between your point of origin and Zacatecas. 4. FLAS. Graduate students at U.S. universities may obtain FLAS funding for this course through their home academic institution. For more information, please contact: John Sullivan, Ph.D. Home phone: +52 (492) 768-6048 Tacuba 152, int. 47 Mobile: +52-492-118-0854 Colonia Centro Office: +52 (492) 925-3415 Zacatecas, Zac., 98000 Fax: +52 (492) 925-3416 M?xico Email: macehuallier at mac.com idiez @mac.com http://www.macehualli.org http://www.idiez.org.mx Macehualli Educational Research, el Instituto de Docencia e Investigaci?n Etnol?gica de Zacatecas, A.C., y el Centro de Idiomas de la Universidad Aut?noma de Zacatecas Curso intensivo de n?huatl antiguo y moderno para no-nativohablantes Verano 2008 (del 23 de junio al primero de agosto) Instructores: El Dr. John Sullivan, la Lic. Delfina de la Cruz, y asistentes de c?tedra ind?genas. Objetivos generales 1. Desarrollar en los estudiantes la comprensi?n oral, el habla, la lectura, la escritura, el conocimiento de la estructura del idioma, y la sensibilidad cultural, para facilitar su capacidad de comunicaci?n efectiva, correcta y creativa en situaciones de la vida cotidiana. 2. Proporcionar a los alumnos instrumentos y experiencias que evidencien la continuidad entre la cultura nahua del pasado y del presente, a trav?s del estudio de textos coloniales y modernos, la conversaci?n con nativohablantes y una estancia en una comunidad nahua. 3. Adentrar en los aspectos hist?ricos, econ?micos, pol?ticos, sociales y culturales de la civilizaci?n nahua. 4. Preparar a los estudiantes para cursar, junto con nativohablantes, materias en las humanidades a nivel universitario, impartidas en lengua n?huatl. 5. Proporcionar a los alumnos la oportunidad de desarrollar un proyecto de investigaci?n en colaboraci?n con uno o m?s nativohablantes de n?huatl. Requisitos de inscripci?n: 1. Copia del acta de nacimiento o del CURP para mexicanos. Copia del pasaporte para extranjeros (no es necesario obtener una visa de estudiante). 2. dos fotograf?as tama?o infantil Cr?dito acad?mico: El curso ser? acreditado para un total de 140 horas con la emisi?n de una boleta oficial de calificaciones a trav?s del Centro de Idiomas de la Universidad Aut?noma de Zacatecas. Evaluaci?n: 1. Se evaluar? el desempe?o de los estudiantes principiantes en base a tres categor?as: 40%, tres pruebas de n?huatl antiguo (gram?tica y traducci?n) 40%, tres pruebas de n?huatl moderno (comprensi?n auditiva, producci?n oral, lectura, escritura, y gram?tica). 20%, reporte de investigaci?n. 2. Se evaluar? el desempe?o de los estudiantes intermedios en base a tres categor?as: 40%, tres pruebas de n?huatl antiguo (gram?tica, paleograf?a, traducci?n y comentario) 40%, tres pruebas de n?huatl moderno (lectura, escritura, y gram?tica). 20%, reporte de investigaci?n. 3. Se evaluar? el desempe?o de los estudiantes avanzados en base a su trabajo escrito en n?huatl moderno. Calendario y actividades: Habr? seis semanas de trabajo del 23 de junio al 1 de agosto de 2008, para un total de 142.5 horas. Las actividades acad?micas estar?n distribuidas de acuerdo a las siguientes cuatro componentes: 1. NAHUATL ANTIGUO Los alumnos se reunir?n dos horas por d?a, cinco d?as por semana durante cinco semanas en las instalaciones del IDIEZ en Zacatecas para estudiar el n?huatl antiguo. a). Alumnos en el nivel principiante estudiar?n las primeras ocho lecciones de Nahuatl as Written de James Lockhart, y traducir?n algunas selecciones sencillas de textos coloniales. b) Alumnos en el nivel intermedio estudiar?n las lecciones nueve a dieciseis del texto Nahuatl as Written de James Lockhart, y se iniciar?n en la paleograf?a, traducci?n y comentario de manuscritos coloniales. c). Alumnos en el nivel avanzado se dedicar?n exclusivamente a paleografiar, analizar y comentar manuscritos coloniales. Materiales para el curso de n?huatl antiguo: Todos los alumnos deber?n contar con ejemplares personales de los siguientes textos: 1. Karttunen, Francis. 1983. An Analytical Dictionary of Nahuatl. Texas Linguistics Series. Austin: University of Texas Press. 2. Lockhart, James. 2001. Nahuatl as Written. Lessons in Older Written Nahuatl, with Copious Examples and Texts. Stanford: Stanford University Press. 3. Molina, Alonso de. 1977(1555-1571). Vocabulario en lengua castellana y mexicana y mexicana y castellana. Colecci?n ?Biblioteca Porr?a? 44. M?xico: Porr?a. Adem?s, todos los estudiantes recibir?n, de manera gratuita, manuales de ejercicios, esquemas gramaticales y listas de vocabulario, as? como fotocopias e im?genes digitalizadas de los manuscritos que vamos a estudiar. 2. NAHUATL MODERNO Los alumnos se reunir?n dos horas y media por d?a, cinco d?as por semana durante las primeras cinco semanas del curso, y una hora por d?a durante la sexta semana para estudiar el n?huatl moderno con profesores nativohablantes. Nivel principiante: Las primeras dos semanas constituir?n una etapa de inmersi?n, en la cual los alumnos aprender?n a conversar en n?huatl sin el auxilio de la traducci?n ni la gram?tica. Dicho componente est? basado metodol?gicamente en el trabajo temprano de los ling?istas Stephen Krashen y Tracy Terrell. Esta fase terminar? con un examen de comprensi?n auditiva y producci?n oral. En una segunda etapa de dos semanas, los estudiantes continuar?n con las actividades de conversaci?n. Adem?s, se introducir? el sistema de escritura y las tres estructuras gram?ticales b?sicas: las frases nominales, verbales y relacionales. Los estudios gramaticales se basar?n en una serie de esquemas y ejercicios escritos desarollados por los profesores. Dicha fase terminar? con un examen oral de conversaci?n y un examen escrito sobre el sistema de escritura y la gram?tica. Durante la etapa final de dos semanas, los alumnos empezar?n a leer textos en n?huatl moderno, enfatizando su comprensi?n. Se utilizar? un vocabulario biling?e b?sico preparado por los profesores. Se finalizar? el curso con un examen escrito de comprensi?n de lectura. Nivel intermedio: Durante las seis semanas del curso, los alumnos leer?n, analizar?n y comentar?n, tanto oralmente como por escrito, diversos textos en n?huatl moderno. Asimismo, estudiar?n algunas estructuras ling??sticas complejas. Nivel avanzado: El alumno investigar?, en colaboraci?n con los profesores del Instituto, alg?n tema de la cultura nahua, bas?ndose en fuentes escritas antiguas, o bien, en fuentes escritas u orales modernas. Elaborar? un trabajo corto en lengua n?huatl sobre dicho tema. 3. INVESTIGACION INDIVIDUAL EN COLABORACION CON NATIVOHABLANTES Cada estudiante se reunir? con un nativohablante una hora por d?a durante las cinco semanas en Zacatecas para trabajar alg?n proyecto de investigaci?n relacionado con la lengua o la cultura nahua. Para esto, ser? necesario que el alumno proponga, antes de ser aceptado al programa, un proyecto que desee implementar para dicho componente. El personal del IDIEZ proporcionar? asesor?a al respecto. Los alumnos pueden proponer proyectos de investigaci?n individuales o colectivos, incluyendo investigaci?n para tesis o disertaci?n, o pueden integrarse a alguno de los proyectos que realiza IDIEZ actualmente. Por ejemplo, estamos preparando el primer diccionario monoling?e del n?huatl. Todos los estudiantes elaborar?n y entregar?n un reporte de su investigaci?n al finalizar el curso. 4. ESTANCIA EN LA HUASTECA El s?bado 26 de julio nos trasladaremos a Tepecxitla, Veracruz donde permaneceremos hasta el d?a primero de agosto. Cada estudiante vivir? con una familia nahua, y participar? en sus actividades diarias, incluyendo la preparaci?n y ejecuci?n de la ceremonia, Chicomexochitl. As?mismo, continuaremos con la instrucci?n formal en conversaci?n, lectura y escritura del n?huatl moderno. Costo: El costo del programa es: 1. US$2400 para colegiatura. 2. US$1100-1300 para transportaci?n, comida y hospedaje por seis semanas. La diferencia depende de las opciones de hospedaje durante la estancia de cinco semanas en Zacatecas. Estas incluyen cuarto individual o compartido en un hostal, y cuarto individual en una casa rentada compartida con otros alumnos. 3. No est?n incluidos los textos de Lockhart, Molina, y Karttunen y el viaje redondo entre su punto de origen y Zacatecas. 4. FLAS. Estudiantes de posgrado en universidades norteamericanas pueden conseguir financiamiento de FLAS para este programa a trav?s de su instituci?n educativa de origen. Para m?s informaci?n, favor de comunicarse con: John Sullivan, Ph.D. Domicilio: +52 (492) 768-6048 Tacuba 152, int. 47 Celular: +52-492-118-0854 Colonia Centro Oficina: +52 (492) 925-3415 Zacatecas, Zac., 98000 Fax: +52 (492) 925-3416 M?xico Correo electr?nico: macehuallier at mac.com idiez @mac.com http:// www.macehualli.org http://www.idiez.org.mx -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: John Sullivan, Ph.D..vcf Type: text/directory Size: 33602 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- _______________________________________________ Nahuatl mailing list Nahuatl at lists.famsi.org http://www.famsi.org/mailman/listinfo/nahuatl