Codes used for messages

[brokaw at buffalo.edu]

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 <oudyk at hotmail.com>:

> 
> 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^®> ËhžÃÚŠ{^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