Codes used for messages

Wed Jan 23 00:37:33 UTC 2008

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 José,

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 América indígena en su literatura: Los libros del cuarto mundo, Fondo de Cultura Económico, 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 Cronológica):

"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 más antiguo que se conserve sobre la datación de la Era en Mesoamérica puede encontrarse en inscripciones olmecas, que se colocan por la edad de Cristo, contando unidades de tiempo a partir del año 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 & 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 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 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 Balam de Tizimin, el cual da informes sobre la reforma calendárica del siglo XVIII que condujo a una aproximación general entre el tun y el año solar 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 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 José Argüelles, 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 años se atribuye al actual Sol o Era en la tradición 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 Tenochtitlan, y fue transcrito a las historias nahuas de Cuauhtitlan y de Chalco (la fuente de Chimalpahin, y después de Boturini), mientras que el Manuscrito 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 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 capítulo inicial del Códice Ríos, aparece como 13 unidades de turquesa peludas (con tzontli = 400) que son cuidadosamente 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, señalada 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 como el año 13 Caña (3113 a.C.)"

B. refers here to folio 7r Códice Vaticano A, also known as the Codex Ríos. 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 Relación. 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 Pérez Jiménez
Origen e historia de los reyes mixtecos. Libro explicativo del llamado Códice Vindobonensis. Sociedad Estatal Quinto Centenario/ADEVA/Fondo de Cultura Económica, 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‰žÉæ«±¨("Z(‘çiëmÉÉh±érjÐk¢Ø^®ËhžÃÚŠ{^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> > > > > 
_________________________________________________________________
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: <http://listserv.linguistlist.org/pipermail/nahuat-l/attachments/20080123/a1eeb009/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
_______________________________________________
Nahuatl mailing list
Nahuatl at lists.famsi.org
http://www.famsi.org/mailman/listinfo/nahuatl