Aztec World Ages and the Calendar Stone

Tue Jan 22 04:45:30 UTC 2008

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.> > <http://us.rd.yahoo.com/evtQ733/*http://mobile.yahoo.com/;_ylt=u06i62sR8HDtDypao8Wcj9tAcJ>> > > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------> > Express yourself instantly with MSN Messenger! MSN Messenger> > <http://clk.atdmt.com/AVE/go/onm00200471ave/direct/01/> > > > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------> > Express yourself instantly with MSN Messenger! MSN Messenger > > <http://clk.atdmt.com/AVE/go/onm00200471ave/direct/01/>> > > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------> > > > _______________________________________________> > 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: <http://listserv.linguistlist.org/pipermail/nahuat-l/attachments/20080122/7c72cdf1/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
_______________________________________________
Nahuatl mailing list
Nahuatl at lists.famsi.org
http://www.famsi.org/mailman/listinfo/nahuatl