<html>
<head>
<style>
.hmmessage P
{
margin:0px;
padding:0px
}
body.hmmessage
{
FONT-SIZE: 10pt;
FONT-FAMILY:Tahoma
}
</style>
</head>
<body class='hmmessage'>
Dear all,<BR>
<BR>
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.<BR>
<BR>
I certainly agree with Galen on one thing; I just should have ignored the message.<BR>
<BR>
Michel<BR>
<BR><BR>> Date: Mon, 21 Jan 2008 17:33:18 -0500<BR>> From: brokaw@buffalo.edu<BR>> CC: nahuatl@lists.famsi.org<BR>> Subject: Re: [Nahuat-l] Aztec World Ages and the Calendar Stone<BR>> <BR>> Dear Michel and Listeros,<BR>> I don't have an answer to Carl's question, but I would contest Michel's <BR>> assertion that Brotherston's analysis is "pure numerology" that has <BR>> "nothing to do with Mesoamerican culture, history or cosmovision." In <BR>> the interest of full disclosure, I should say that I studied under <BR>> Brotherston in graduate school, and I admire his work. However, I think <BR>> that I am fairly intellectually independent. With that disclaimer, I <BR>> would argue that to dismiss Brotherston's analysis in the way that <BR>> Michel does is problematic for several reasons.<BR>> <BR>> There is certainly a lot of pseudo-scholarship on Mesoamerican cultures, <BR>> and, Michel, I share your frustration with it; but I don't see how <BR>> anybody could say that Brotherston's work falls into that category. It <BR>> is very misleading to say that his work, or even this particular <BR>> analysis, is a search for "cryptic codes, hidden messages, or mystic <BR>> signs." The implication is that indigenous texts are transparent and <BR>> that numerological readings of them are on a par with Western <BR>> numerological beliefs that have survived among small groups in modern <BR>> European and Euro-american societies. First of all, there are many <BR>> aspects of Mesoamerican iconography that we don't understand. And there <BR>> is a fundamental difference in the cultural importance of the modern <BR>> minority beliefs in new-age numerology and the dominant numerology of <BR>> ancient cultures in both Mesoamerica and Europe and the Middle East. In <BR>> Hebrew numerology, for example, it was believed that there was an <BR>> inherent relationship between numbers and the letters of the Hebrew <BR>> alphabet; and this was part of a dominant cultural perspective. It is <BR>> important to note that in the Hebrew tradition, this numerology informed <BR>> the production of texts in various different ways. This does not <BR>> necessarily mean, as some people believe, that the Bible contains some <BR>> sort of hidden code that predicts the future if we could only figure out <BR>> how to decode it. But I think it is generally accepted that Hebrew <BR>> literacy had a numerical dimension that manifested itself in significant <BR>> ways. It is believed, for example, that there are 22 books in the Jewish <BR>> canon because there are 22 letters in the Hebrew alphabet. This doesn't <BR>> mean that identifying this numerical dimension of the text holds the key <BR>> to some sort of mystical knowledge or even a hidden message, but it <BR>> certainly gives us a more thorough understanding of Hebrew textuality; <BR>> and in some cases, it may appropriately contribute to the way in which <BR>> we understand certain texts. "Numerology" does not have to have the <BR>> pejorative sense that it often has in modern Western culture. In any <BR>> case, whether you call it numerology or not, the fact is that in <BR>> Mesoamerican cultures indigenous numeracy is very complex (in many ways, <BR>> even more so than in Western cultures), and it plays an important role <BR>> in the integrated realm of politics, economics, religion, history, etc., <BR>> and hence in the technologies of communication in which knowledge was <BR>> inscribed. It is well known that many indigenous pictographic texts <BR>> explicitly record quantities and sequences related to astronomical <BR>> observations and calendrics, and that other non-quantitative imagery <BR>> often has a numerical dimension. To be sure, the extent to which <BR>> iconographic imagery is infused with indigenous numerical significance <BR>> gets a bit tricky. It is often much less explicit, and hence more <BR>> controversial. I think this is part of Brotherston's argument that Carl <BR>> is trying to corroborate: for example, the numerical correlation of the <BR>> Fire Lord and Sun God to the numbers one and four respectively. In <BR>> general, though, trying to understand the significance of indigenous <BR>> numeracy through the way it informs and is reflected in indigenous texts <BR>> is not merely a "game of numbers and concepts."<BR>> <BR>> To dismiss Brotherston's analysis because you are not familiar with any <BR>> sources that might justify his interpretation begs several questions. Of <BR>> course, it is always important to be judicious in areas where there is a <BR>> dearth of evidence. If Brotherston did not base his argument on an <BR>> analysis of indigenous sources, then a non-substantive "lack of <BR>> evidence" argument might seem compelling. But in fact there is abundant <BR>> evidence for reading the numerological dimension of these texts. The <BR>> argument Brotherston presents is based explicitly on a correlated <BR>> reading of numerous indigenous texts. In the pages to which Carl refers, <BR>> he is reading the Sun Stone, of course, but also the Mexicanus Codex, <BR>> the Tepexic Annals, the Rios Codex, the Paris screenfold, the <BR>> Cuauhtitlan Annals, the Vaticanus screenfold, and the Borgia.<BR>> <BR>> Based on the casual way in which you dismiss Brotherston's analysis, I'm <BR>> assuming here (perhaps incorrectly) that you are familiar with both <BR>> Brotherston's book and the texts that he cites. If so, the implication <BR>> of your general dismissal of his argument is that although you <BR>> acknowledge that these sources exist, you don't feel that they justify <BR>> Brotherston's reading/interpretation. But you don't say anything <BR>> substantive to back up this refutation. It certainly may be possible to <BR>> refute Brotherston's argument, but in order to do so, you would have to <BR>> actually formulate your own interpretive argument based on your own <BR>> counter-reading of the texts that he cites and possibly others that he <BR>> doesn't. In other words, you would have to engage his argument and his <BR>> indigenous sources. Maybe you have already formulated such an argument. <BR>> If so, that would be an interesting and legitimate contribution to a <BR>> scholarly discussion. But you can't just refute him based on your own <BR>> merely asserted authoritative knowledge of the corpus of Mesoamerican <BR>> sources, particularly when Brotherston's argument is explicitly based on <BR>> an analysis of numerous primary texts. Regardless of whether or not <BR>> Brotherston's analysis is accurate, he has clearly done his homework, <BR>> and it is unfair and irresponsible to dismiss his work if you haven't <BR>> done yours.<BR>> <BR>> Michel, I hope you don't take this personally. Even if Gordon weren't a <BR>> mentor and friend, I would caution everyone against refuting other <BR>> people's work in such a casual, non-substantive way. Even in the case of <BR>> the type of pseudo-scholarship that you mentioned, I think that it is <BR>> normally better to just ignore it. I must confess that I have been <BR>> guilty of doing the same thing for which I'm criticizing you with what I <BR>> felt was pseudo-scholarship. So this criticism is something that I have <BR>> self-reflexively applied to myself as well, for whatever that is worth. <BR>> I recognize that there are times when pseudo-scholarship gains a lot of <BR>> ground in the popular imagination and may even start encroaching on more <BR>> serious academic work. In those cases, it may be necessary to identify <BR>> it as such. But to the extent that it actually achieves some sort of <BR>> encroachment or legitimacy, it also deserves substantive refutation at <BR>> least once.<BR>> <BR>> Again, however, I have a hard time seeing how anyone could classify <BR>> Brotherston's work as pseudo-scholarship. One of the premises of his <BR>> work is that we should take indigenous texts seriously, and that is what <BR>> he does in _Book of the Fourth World_; and he does it in a serious and <BR>> scholarly way. In a book as broad-ranging as _Book of the Fourth World_, <BR>> it would probably be hard to get everything right, and Brotherston would <BR>> probably be the first to recognize that. And I'm sure that some of his <BR>> arguments are controversial. But I don't think that there is any way <BR>> that you can call him a pseudo-scholar or layman. I have a lot more that <BR>> I could say about the theoretical and methodological framework, but I'll <BR>> stop here.<BR>> <BR>> Galen Brokaw<BR>> <BR>> <BR>> <BR>> <BR>> <BR>> Michel Oudijk wrote:<BR>> > This is pure numerology and has nothing to do whatsoever with<BR>> > Mesoamerican culture, history or cosmovision. At least, I don't know<BR>> > of any indigenous sources, present or past, that justify this game<BR>> > of numbers and concepts. This search for encrypted codes, hidden<BR>> > messages, or mystic signs is a 'cosmic dragon' created by pseudo<BR>> > scholars and laymen without any kind of theoretical or<BR>> > methodological framework.<BR>> > <BR>> > Michel R. Oudijk<BR>> > Seminario de Lenguas Indígenas<BR>> > Instituto de Investigaciones Filológicas<BR>> > Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México<BR>> > <BR>> > <BR>> > ------------------------------------------------------------------------<BR>> > Date: Sat, 19 Jan 2008 09:16:01 -0800<BR>> > From: ahchich1@yahoo.com<BR>> > To: Nahuatl@lists.famsi.org<BR>> > Subject: [Nahuat-l] Aztec World Ages and the Calendar Stone<BR>> > <BR>> > Dear Friends,<BR>> > <BR>> > I have a question concerning the possible span of a world age as<BR>> > numerically recorded on the Aztec Calendar Stone. Gorden Brotherston in his<BR>> > Book of the Forth World (see his fig. 54 and pages 298-299) believes<BR>> > that the Aztec scribes encoded mathematically the time spans of world ages<BR>> > into the stone via the "mixcoa" or cloud serpents that frame the<BR>> > outer rim of the great stone. I am not an Aztec scholar so I can<BR>> > not refute or verify his interpretation. I hope those of you who are<BR>> > familiar with Aztec signs and iconography can tell me if his reading<BR>> > is at least plausible. <BR>> > <BR>> > Here is what he writes on page 299 of the work:<BR>> > <BR>> > "Just as the Era Four Ollin visually frames the proceeding four world<BR>> > ages at the center of the sunstone, so its length is recorded on the rim<BR>> > as we saw, in ten lots of ten Rounds imaged as cloud-snakes that issue<BR>> > from the squared scales of sky dragons to<BR>> > right and left. Now as we<BR>> > noted above, the heads peering from the dragons' maws below belong<BR>> > respectively to Fire Lord (left) and the Sun (right), who are One and Four in<BR>> > the set of thirteen Heroes. Hence, each endows its dragon and the<BR>> > Rounds on its back with number value, a capacity they and others among them<BR>> > display, for example, in the Pinturas transcription of the world-age<BR>> > story. As One, Fire Lord simply confirms the 5,200-year total; as Four,<BR>> > Sun multiples it to 20,800 to the remaining four-fifths of the Great<BR>> > Year [26,000 years]. Hence:<BR>> > <BR>> > 1x10x10x52=200<BR>> > 4x10x10x52 ,800<BR>> > <BR>> > 26,000<BR>> > <BR>> > <BR>> > In the Cuauhtitlan Annals transcription of the Sunstone cosmogony, the<BR>> > four-fifths of the Great Year is noted as "CCCC mixcoa," that is, four<BR>> > hundred cloud-snake rounds."<BR>> > <BR>> > <BR>> > My questions are these:<BR>> > <BR>> > Do the Fire Lord and the Sun God have numerical equivalents of 1 and 4?<BR>> > <BR>> > Are the 10<BR>> > glyphs bordered by ten dots on the backs of the Serpents<BR>> > glyphs/names for the 52 year period?<BR>> > <BR>> > Where else in Aztec lit. is it mentioned that the so called cloud<BR>> > serpents manifest or are seen as representing a world Era?<BR>> > <BR>> > Finally is Gorden Brotherston still amongst the living so I might ask<BR>> > him directly?<BR>> > <BR>> > IF GB is correct, then I believe there are are interesting parallels<BR>> > that can be made to the art, numerology and iconography of other<BR>> > MesoAmerican cultures.<BR>> > <BR>> > I look forward to your answers.<BR>> > <BR>> > Carl Callaway<BR>> > <BR>> > <BR>> > <BR>> > <BR>> > <BR>> > <BR>> > ------------------------------------------------------------------------<BR>> > Be a better friend, newshound, and know-it-all with Yahoo!<BR>> > Mobile. Try it now.<BR>> > <http://us.rd.yahoo.com/evtQ733/*http://mobile.yahoo.com/;_ylt=u06i62sR8HDtDypao8Wcj9tAcJ><BR>> > <BR>> > <BR>> > ------------------------------------------------------------------------<BR>> > Express yourself instantly with MSN Messenger! MSN Messenger<BR>> > <http://clk.atdmt.com/AVE/go/onm00200471ave/direct/01/> <BR>> > <BR>> > <BR>> > ------------------------------------------------------------------------<BR>> > Express yourself instantly with MSN Messenger! MSN Messenger <BR>> > <http://clk.atdmt.com/AVE/go/onm00200471ave/direct/01/><BR>> > <BR>> > <BR>> > ------------------------------------------------------------------------<BR>> > <BR>> > _______________________________________________<BR>> > Nahuatl mailing list<BR>> > Nahuatl@lists.famsi.org<BR>> > http://www.famsi.org/mailman/listinfo/nahuatl<BR>> <BR>> _______________________________________________<BR>> Nahuatl mailing list<BR>> Nahuatl@lists.famsi.org<BR>> http://www.famsi.org/mailman/listinfo/nahuatl<BR><BR><br /><hr />Express yourself instantly with MSN Messenger! <a href='http://clk.atdmt.com/AVE/go/onm00200471ave/direct/01/' target='_new'>MSN Messenger</a></body>
</html>