Sunday, October 7, 2012

Carl Callaway's PhD Thesis: A Catalogue Of Maya Era Day Inscriptions

South Face of Quirigua Zoomorph P that contains an era day inscription
Well its official, I received notice from La Trobe University that my PhD was granted so I can finally share a copy of my dissertation on Maya era day inscriptions. I hope it is as rewarding for you to read as it was for me to research and write. All the source data for all known era day events (the verbs, the gods, the locations) is listed in the appendices for easy reference.  Here is the abstract :

The following work is a catalogue of all known era day inscriptions existing in the Maya hieroglyphic corpus originating from Classic Period Maya (250-900 AD) sites in Mexico, Guatemala, and Honduras. It compiles those mythic texts that occurred within a single day— the inaugural date of the Maya Long Count and the establishment of a new cosmic era on 13.0.0.0.0 4 Ajaw 8 Kumk'u (August 11, 3114 BC). Although past reviews  of era day mythology have greatly expanded our knowledge of Maya mythic history, they do not give a complete inventory of all known passages. This project offers a full inventory of these sacred texts and scrupulously analyzes each component including the various era day events, gods and mythic locales. In addition, the work examines Maya myth from an emic perspective by evaluating the different genres of mythology found within Maya literature with the purpose of clarifying how myth acted as a living force within society. It includes a transliteration, transcription and translation of each passage followed by a commentary that explores each text’s mythic, historic, architectural and religious associations. Once compiled, the work attempts to organize these passages within a hypothetical narrative and produce a tentative reconstruction of the basic era day story. At the very least, this study seeks to provide an organized body of data for future researchers interested in the topic of Maya cosmology.


I've uploaded a copy of the thesis ontoGoogle Docs at (send me an email and I can give you access): 



Looking back on the project, I now understand the James Joyce quote: "Anything deeply considered is a pathway to the gods". The dissertation is but a small glimpse into the imago mundi of ancient Maya cosmology and how myth gave birth to the Maya universe.

All the Best in 2012,

Carl

Tuesday, July 31, 2012

ARCHAEOASTRONOMY Volume XXIV: The Maya Calendar & 2012 Phenomenon Studies



ARCHAEOASTRONOMY Volume XXIV: is now available. The issue includes the following papers on the topic of 2012 studies:

The Maya Calendar and 2012 Phenomenon Studies: An Introduction
John B. Carlson

The Maya Long Count Calendar: An Introduction
Mark Van stone

It’s Not the End of the World: What the Ancient Maya Tell Us about 2012
Mark Van stone

Primordial Time and Future Time: Maya Era Day Mythology in the Context of the
Tortuguero 2012 Prophecy
Carl D. Callaway

The Sidereal Year and the Celestial Caiman: Measuring Deep Time in Maya Inscriptions
Michael J. Grofe

Maya Mythology: Only One Reference to 2012?
Erik Boot

Holding the Balance: The Role of a Warrior King in the Reciprocity between War and
Lineage Abundance on Tortuguero Monument 6
BarBara MacLeod

Anticipating the Maya Apocalypse: What Might the Ancient Day Keepers Have
Envisioned for December 21, 2012?
John B. Carlson

New Age Sympathies and Scholarly Complicities: The History and Promotion of the
2012 Mythology
John w. Hoopes

2,012 by 2012? The “Impending Apparent End” of the “2012” Publishing Phenomenon
Kevin a. Whitesides

The issue is now being printed and bound by University of Texas Press Journals and will be mailed out to subscribers around the middle of August. 

Here is the URL from the UT Press;
http://www.utexas.edu/utpress/journals/jarch.html#XXIV

Friday, July 27, 2012

New 2012 Inscription Found at La Corona Guatemala

Among the many new exciting finds at La Corona was a hieroglyphic stairway containing several beautifully carved panels, one of which records another 2012 passage! For a preliminary report on the text, see David Stuart's Blog Post at: http://decipherment.wordpress.com/2012/06/30/notes-on-a-new-text-from-la-corona/ 

Wednesday, May 30, 2012

Analysis of the Term K’ojob in Era Day Expressions




The jehlaj k'ojob expression is the most widely quoted of all era day events in Maya inscriptions and it refers to the changing of a pedestal or altar at the start of the current era on 13.0.0.0.0             4 Ajaw  8 Kumk'u or August 11/13 3114 BC, the "zero" date of the Maya Long Count calendar. Here is an example from from Stela C, East side (block B6) of Quirigua, Guatemala:

JEL-[la]ja k’o-ba collocation from Quirigua Stela C
(Drawing by Annie Hunter) 

The item that is being changed is the k'ojob. The term is not well understood since it occurs very rarely in the inscriptions.  I thought a further inquiry into this enigmatic term might shed some light on the subject since so much of how we interpret this climatic era day event depends on knowing the type of the object that is being changed. The term k’ojob is found on the following era day monuments[1]:

Coba Stela 1, back (N18)
Chichen Itza, The Caracol (Structure 3C15), Panel 1, Right Lateral Face (R9)
Copan Stela 23, sides “A” (D7-D9) and “C” (F1)
La Corona Altar 4 (A’1)
Palenque, Temple of the Cross, Main Panel (D6)
Palenque, Temple of the Sun, Main Panel (E1)
Piedras Negras, Altar 1, Fragment B (L2)
Quirigua Stela C, East side (B6)

In all these cases, the word is spelled using two syllabic signs /k’o-/ and /-b’a/, with the intial /k’o-/ syllable spelled using the T220 sign that is a depiction of a clinched, downward pointing fist (Thompson 1962:449; Boot 2008:9). The /k’o/ syllable was first deciphered by Linda Schele based on a k’o-jo or k’oj for “mask” spelling on a Site R, Lintel 2 text associated with a figure wearing a mask (Schele 1991:108). Early in the decipherment of era day texts, it was proposed that the term k’ob might read yeb for “his stair” (Macleod 1991) with the T220 holding a syllabic value of /ye-/ (the T220 sign is very similar to the T710 /ye-/ sign representing the profile of a partially open right hand). As the meaning syllabic signs progressed, it became clear that T220 and T710 held distinct values of /k’o/ and /ye/ respectively. Schele used the /k’o/ value for T220 to derive k’oh, the word for “image/mask” on the Palenque Cross Tablet (D6) (while discounting the very prominent /–b’a/ syllable sitting directly under the /k’o-/ ) as well as on the K6593 Panel (block A4) (Schele 1992:122-123 and 127; Freidel et al. 1993:65-67 and page 70-71). Schele also applied the /k’o-/ value to a translation in the Quirigua Stela C era day text (B6) and arrived at a slightly different spelling than that on the Palenque Temple of the Cross example (this time incorporating the /-b’a/ syllable into the word) with a reading of k’ohba for “image or statue” (Schele 1992:123; Freidel et al. 1993:67). More recently, Freidel and MacLeod (2000) proposed a new reading for the subject of the era day expression at Palenque and Quirigua:
First of all, reevaluation of the Creation text at Quirigua C shows that the k’ohba “images(s)” reading was probably not correct. The subject of the “crossed planks” verb in Kan-Balam’s Palenque Creation texts, and in others, must be k’oob “hearth”, “trivit”, found in Yucatec k’ooben “hearth, hearthstones, kitchen with cognates in Kekchi “k’ub”; Chorti and Cholti “chub”- probably glottalized: ch’ub
The term was now thought to represent “hearthstone” and it relates to the colonial Yucatec Maya word for  k’ob’en “kitchen, hearth” that is composed of three stones on which a cooking griddle sits (cf. Barrera Vásquez 1980:406, after Boot 2009:9). This new reading has had favor among leading epigraphers in the field yet, others employ a more generalized term of “tripod” rather than hearthstone (Looper 2003:226).
The term k’ob is used in the inscriptions outside the context of era day expressions and these additional uses offer evidence toward its spelling and insights into its meaning (p.c. Péter Bíró 2008). Additional spellings of the word occur on Copan Structure 30, Altar 19469 (A1) (Schele 1990; Andrews 2005 et al. 2005:285-287) and Yaxchilan Hieroglyphic Stairway 5, Step 16 (block 81) (Boot 2009:111). The Copan altar is circular in shape and flat-topped; it is 30 cm in diameter and 8 cm thick and has wheel-like shape. A glyphic text is carved on its perimeter edge; the text “states that u yak’ chaak was brought out or manifested at the celebration of Yax Pasaj’s first k’atun of rule, and the ceramic effigy referred to is the yitah yahawil  “the companion of the lord or his office” (Andrews et al. 2005:287). This small circular altar makes an ideal platform on which the effigy indicated most probably sat. Notice how scribes spell the k’ob term on this Copan altar and on the Yaxchilan steps by adding the interior syllable /-jo-/ :

Copan Str.30 Altar 19469 (A1-A6):u-JEL k’o-jo-ba u ya-k’u CHAAK-ki .  . .


Yaxchilan Stairway 5 Step 16 (block 81):  .  .  .  k’o-jo-ba-li ye-TE’-je u-chan ta-ja-mo’-o? aj-15-ba-ki k’uhul-“YAX EG?”-[AJAW] KALOM-TE’

These two cases spell the term with the interior /-jo-/ syllable indicating that the word may be under-spelled in other cases when written as k’o-ba. The Copan example is especially telling since it occurs in phrase that uses the same verb jel collocation as in the era day expression by recording “the next k’ojob (of) uyak’u chaak[2] The item possessed by uyak’u chaak is the k’ojob or the round flat-topped altar itself on which the inscription is written. Here is a photo of a cast of the Copan altar:


Copan Structure 30, Altar 19469
(Photo by Carl Callaway)

Here is close up of the main event. Note the addition of the /-jo/ syllable above the /-ba/ sign:


u-JEL k’o-jo-ba collocation on Copan Structure 30, Altar 19469
(photo by Carl Callaway)


 In the Yaxchilan example,  k’o-jo-ba-li ye-TE’-je u-chan ta-ja-mo’-o? aj-15-ba-ki k’uhul-“YAX EG?”-[AJAW] KALOM-TE’ the possessor of the k’ojobil is the king Itzamnaj Balam III the “guardian” and captor of Torch Macaw[3]. So, the question arises:  What is the meaning of k’ojob? Does the term name a particular flat-topped stone or a hearth stone? The full spelling of the term as k’o-jo-ba argues against the previous derivation as k’o-ba and a classification as a hearthstone.  
One more example of the term k’ob comes from the site of Joyanca  where it is part of a standard dedicatory phrase for another small circular altar (very similar in shape and size to the previous Copan altar) from Structure 6E-12 thought to be used as an incensario stand (Formé 2006:06). David Stuart transcribed the glyph blocks A2-C1 as: T’AB'AY u-k’o-b’a TUN-ni-li? (Formé 2006:06) Like on the Copan altar, the item indicated by the k’o-ba spelling is the circular altar that is being dedicated. The Joyanca stone, with its flat top is ideal for an effigy stand. It is difficult to ascertain given the present evidence, if the k’ojob refers to the altar/pedestal stone itself, or to the effigy/god it supports, or the altar/pedestal stone and the effigy/god together (p.c.  Barbara Macleod 2011). Based on the current evidence stated, the proper spelling of the term is k’o-jo-ba for k’ojob and may translate as a flat-topped, circular stone altar.
In a counter opinion David Stuart (2011a:216-219) interprets the term under consideration as not k’ojob but k’oj meaning “image,” “mask” or “face” with the /–ba/ suffix attached at the end of k’oj  root serving apparently as an instrumental suffix[4]. The new glyphic phrase reads something like jelaj k’oj baah for “the face-image changed” (Stuart 2011a:219)[5] with k’oj being in this case “image.” Stuart offers the following explination:
Perhaps the word k’oj refers to masks, images, or faces that should be equated in some manner with the three sacred stones dedicated on that day by the gods. I suggest this as a possibility because we’ve long known that the three stone heads or masks along a celestial band comprise an important cosmological symbol for the Classic Maya, most often manifested as small portrait heads attached to “sky belts” worn by Maya kings as part of the ceremonial costume for period-ending rituals. The “change of masks” might then, refer to the idea of the cosmos getting a new identity of some type― a makeover of sorts―which in turn became symbolically reflected in the ritual dress of Maya Kings, and especially in their cosmic belts (Stuart 2011a:12).
The new Stuart hypothesis is difficult to adopt in the face of such a strong correspondence between the object named in the dedicatory passage on the altars/pedestal stones from Joyanca and Copan.

Hopefully in the future, additional texts using the k’ojob term will come to light and help clarify its essential meaning and semantic domain.


[1] See Quirgua Stela F, west side, block B16 and Quirgua Zoomorph P, South text, blocks M3a-M2a for other JEL k’o-b’a expressions on non-related era day monuments.

[2] The presence of the /u-/ prefix attached to the term jel derives a type of “change” similar to the word “next” where the subject is coming immediately after a previous change (p.c. Barbara MacLeod 2012).

[3] The mention of the k’ojobil on Yaxchilan Hieroglyphic stair, block 81 is in conjunction with a possible capture event (block 72) on the day 9.18.6.5.11  7 Chuen 19 K’ayab  (blocks 70-71) and a date that is also shared on Yaxchilan Stela 5 (p.c. Peter Mathews 2012).

[4] Normally, Ch’olan languages attach an instrumental suffix to an intransitivized verbal root in order to derive a noun that indicates the instrument used to perform or achieve the action indicated by the verb (p.c. Sven Gronemeyer 2011). Schumann Gálvez gives the following definition in his 1997 Mopán grammar: “.  .  . se coloca después de una raíz verbal para señalar instrumento que se usa o sirve para ejecutar aquello que la raíz verbal indica” (Schumann Gálvez 1997:82). As to how an instrumental suffix applies the root of a noun like k’oj is difficult at present to ascertain, but Yucatec for example also allows a derivation from a nominal base.

 [5] Interestingly Stuart’s reading of k’oj as “image” reflects back to a similar era day reading made by Linda Schele concerning the Kerr 6593 Panel. As Schele (1992:123) states, the key word “in the era expression is k’oh, k’ohba or kohob, all meaning ‘image’ or statue. Also she thought that “Ilahi yax k’oh” translated as “was seen, the image or statue”, and that “hal kohba” meant “appeared the image or statue” (Schele 1992:123; Freidel et al. 1993:65-66). Schele believed that the “image” referred to was a great earth turtle from whose cracked carapace the Maize God emerges (see K1892). Stuart (2011b) recently nullified Schele’s interpretation on K6593 Panel on the grounds of a faulty verb derivation and a misidentification of a historical ruler named yax k’oj ahk chak k’u-? Ajaw (Stuart 2011b). However he does not challenge Schele’s original assertion that the k’oj term spelled on Kerr Panel 6593 simply k’o-jo without the /–ba/ suffix.

Works Cited

Andrews, E. Wyllys, and Cassandra R. Bill

2005    A Late Classic Royal Residence at Copán. In: Copán The History of an Ancient Maya Kingdom. E. Wyllys Andrews and William L. Fash editors. School of American Research Advanced Seminar Series, Oxford.

Barrera Vásquez, Alfredo
            1980    Diccionario Maya Cordemex. Mexico: Ediciones Cordemex.


Boot, Erik
2002  A  Preliminary Classic Maya-English/English-Classic Maya Vocabulary Of Hieroglyphic Readings. .http://www.mesoweb.com/resources/vocabulary/Vocabulary.pdf.

2008 The Hand in Classic Maya Hieroglyphic Writing. Mesoweb. Available



2009a The Updated Preliminary Classic Maya – English, English – Classic Maya Vocabulary of Hieroglyphic Readings. On-line at: http://www.mesoweb.com/resources/vocabulary/Vocabulary.pdf.


Formé, Mélanie
2006    La cronologia ceramica de La Joyanca, Noroeste del Petén, Guatemala. BAR International Series 1572, Archeopress, Oxford, England.


Freidel, David, and Barbara MacLeod
2000    Creation Redux: New Thoughts on Maya cosmology from Epigraphy, Iconography, and Archaeology. In: The PARI Journal, A quarterly publication of the Pre-Columbian Art Research Institute, Vol. 1, No. 2, Fall 2000, Valerie Greene (ed.).


Freidel, David, Linda Schele, and Joy Parker
1993    Maya Cosmos: Three Thousand Years on the Shaman's Path. New York: Quill William Morrow.


Looper, Matthew G.
2003Lightning Warrior: Maya Art and Kingship at Quirigua. Austin: University of Texas     Press.


MacLeod, Barbara
1991    Maya Genesis: The First Steps. North Austin Hieroglyphic Hunch No. 5. Austin.


Schele, Linda
1990    Preliminary Commentary on the New Altar from Structure 30. Copán note 72. Copán, Honduras: Copán Acropolis Archaeology Project and the Instituto Hondureño de Antropología e Historia.
1991     Notebook for the XVth Maya Hieroglyphic Workshop at Texas. Austin, TX: Department of Art and Art History, University ofTexas.
1992    Workbook For The XVIth Maya Hieroglyphic Workshop At Texas. Austin, Texas: University Of Texas At Austin.


Schumann Gálvez, Otto

                1997    Introducción al Maya Mopan.Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México. 290   p.Mexico.


Stuart, David
2011a The Order of Days: The Maya World And The Truth About 2012. New York: Harmony Books.
Stuart, David
2011b  Reinterpreting a “Creation” Text from Chancala, Mexico. Maya Decipherment Web Blog, on the web at: http://decipherment.wordpress.com/page/2/.


Thompson, J. Eric S.

1962    A Catalog Of Maya Hieroglyphs. Oklahoma: University Of Oklahoma Press.

Sunday, January 1, 2012

Rediscovery of the Maya Era Date 13.0.0.0.0 4 Ajaw 8 Kumk'u

Era day passage from Palenque, Temple of the Cross, Main Panel (Photo by  by Paul Johnson)


The rediscovery of the base date of the Maya Long Count was claimed two early Maya scholars: J.T. Goodman and Ernst  Förstemann. But as we shall see, it was Förstemann who must be given proper credit for discovery of the inaugural date. Initially, Goodman surveyed the calendar data largely from the stone monuments and the corpus of inscriptions gathered by A.P. Maudslay while Förstemann analyzed the dates and inscriptions in the Dresden Codex, one of the few surviving handbooks of a Maya priest.
In the commentary “The Archaic Maya Inscriptions” appearing in February of 1897 the Volume VI Appendix of A. P. Maudslay’s great work “Biologia Central Americana”, Goodman (1897:10) described how he labored for well over “seven years” to reconstruct the values of the Maya Long Count from numerical signs (the “bar and dot” and “head variants” of numbers) of the stone inscriptions and from calendar and mathematical data gleaned from the writings of Diego de Landa and Pío Pérez. He states quite emphatically that:
“I ascertained the first cycle [the bak’tun] was composed of twenty katuns . . . I finally deduced a chronological calendar . . . and after reversing the process, succeeded in restructuring the outline of the entire Archaic chronological scheme . . .” (Goodman 1897:13).
Yet curiously on page 93 of his 1897 work, he offers an example of the 4 Ajaw 8 Kumk’u era date reckoning not from the stone inscriptions to which he was intimately familiar but from page 51 and 52 of the Dresden Codex Lunar Tables! This leads one to suspect that Goodman was aware of Förstemann’s previous 1887 deductions from the Dresden Codex concerning the era date and had knowledge of the German scholar’s early discoveries (Thompson 1971:30). Goodman tables do indeed provide the era day base date in conjunction with their Long Counts. About the era date on page 51 of the Dresden Codex, Goodman (1897:93) states that the 4 Ajaw 8 Kumk’u date is “the beginning of the 54th great cycle of the Archaic era.” What does he mean by the 54th great cycle? At the time, Goodman (1897:25) believed that the Initial Series Introductory Glyph (ISIG) represented various Great Cycles where one “Great Cycle” equaled 13 bak’tuns. These “Great Cycles” in turn produced an even larger “Grand Era” that was comprised of 73 “Great Cycles.” At the end of the “Grand Era” the day name and month repeat the same calendar positions[1]. In Goodman’s view the era date was but one of many probable starting points and one that corresponded with the current cycle of 1-13 bak’tuns. Goodman did not offer a straightforward mathematical explanation of how he arrived at the era date. The calculations are inferred from his Long Count charts representing the “54th Great Cycle.” The charts note the “ 54th Cycle” begins with the date 4 Ajaw 8 Kumk’u. Already, Goodman (1897:127, 135) anticipates the idea that the era date and the Great Cycles are related to some great time station by which the calendar returns to a start date and is renewed. Goodman could have reckoned the era date from Maudslay’s drawings of Quirigua Stela C and Palenque’s Temple of the Cross Sanctuary Panel, both of which record the era date which no doubt was verifiable against his Long Count charts and calculations of Maya dates
In the later part of the 1880s E. Förstemann (1904:403) in his examination of the Dresden Codex, reckoned the era date for the Long Count since it served as a base date for the Venus Table calculations as well as several other almanacs. Förstemann saw the zero date being employed for a start date on page 24, 51, 60, 62, 63, and 69 of the Dresden Codex (Förstemann 1906:115, 197, 222, 224, 234). By 1887 in “Zur Entzifferung der Mayahandschrift”Förstemann announced that the Long Count was indeed reckoned from a 4 Ajaw 8 Kumk’ubase date and was able to explain the rational of “Ring Numbers” or numbers that were used to count backward from a base date. In his essay “Aids To Deciphering Maya Manuscripts”, Förstemann restates his earlier discovery:
“A perfectly exact computation was attained only by deciding on some fixed day (the creation of the world, perhaps, or the birth of a principle god) as a point of departure, and by counting the days from zero point . . . this important day is a 4 Ahau 8 Cumku” (Förstemann 1904:399).
Here, Förstemann attaches more than a mathematical importance to the era base date and delves into the possible mythic significance of the day. He conjectures that the date could signify a greater meaning and relate to some cosmogonic or theogenic act of creation. It would be nearly seventy years until such speculation was visually verified with the discovery of the Vase of the Seven Gods (Coe1973:106-109). It was Förstemann then, who was also first to speculate on the mythic significance of the base date.
Eduard Seler (1904:26) in his paper “The Mexican Chronology” also gives credit to his German colleague for the discovery noting that:
“In a paper presented before the International Americanists Congress in at Berlin E. Förstemann, to whom we owe so many discoveries, especially in regard to the mathematics in the Dresden manuscript, furnished proof that . . . the day 4 Ahau (4XX), the eighth of the month Cumku (the last of the eighteen festivals), is to be regarded as zero mark” (Seler 1904:26).
As to Goodmann’s claim of discovery of the era base, the current researcher has not found any written rebuttal by Förstemann noting his opinion on the matter. However, it is clear the German scholar thought lowly of the American’s contributions to field by sourly noting elsewhere :
“In his work “The Archaic Maya Inscriptions,” 1897, which on the whole, contains more imagination than of science  .  .  .” (Förstemann 1906:233)
Thompson (1971:300) finally weighed in on the question of discovery with the evidence against Goodman’s claims:
“Irrefutable evidence, however, that Goodman had read Förstemann comes from his own pen. In discussing the chronological calendar, Goodman writes, ‘It has been known that the Mayas reckoned time by ahaus (e.g. tuns), katuns, cycles (e.g. baktuns), and great cycles (e.g. pictuns).’ That information is in that none of the early sources, but was brought to light only through the studies of Förstemann. Furthermore, Brinton (1895) gives many details of Förstemann’s researches, including the reading of IS [Initial Series], and such matters as the glyphs for the katun and tun, in his Primer of Maya hieroglyphics, which surely must have come into Goodman's hands.”
Ultimately the field of Maya studies benefited from both Förstemann’s and Goodman’s early decipherments and calendar calculations that in the end proved that the mathematics of inscriptions and the codices were based on the same mathematical logic and their Long Count calendars were indeed reckoned from the same base date.



[1]Spinden (1969:36) sums Goodman’s argument for a “Grand Era” as follows: “Goodman sees a neater finish to the chronological problem in a round of 73 times 13 baktuns, which would bring not only the day but the month position back again as a terminal date of a great cycle. He argues that the great wheel of time began from a great cycle of 73 ending on a day 4 Ahau 13 Yax and that the great cycle of the era recorded in the inscriptions was really the 54th in order from this far off beginning.”


Works Cited
Förstemann, Ernst
1887    Die Maya-Handschrift der Koniglich-Sachsischen Bibliothek zu Dresden. Ascher, Dresden.
1904    Aids to The Deciphering Of The Maya Manuscripts. In: Mexican And Central American Antiquities, Calendar Systems, And History, Bureau Of American Ethnology, Bulletin 28 Edited by Charles P. Bowditch, pp. 397-407. Smithsonian Institution, Washington.
1906    Commentary of the Maya manuscript in the Royal Public Library of Dresden. Papers, 4(2), pp. 53-266.  Harvard University, Peabody Museum of American Archaeology and Ethnology: Cambridge, MA.


Goodman, J.T.
1897    Archaic Maya inscriptions. In: Biologia Centrali-Americana; or Contributions to the 
Knowledge of the Fauna and Flora of Mexico and Central America. R. H. Porter
Washington D.C. 


Seler, Eduard
1904    The Mexican chronology, with special reference to the Zapotec calendar. In: Mexican And Central American Antiquities, Calendar Systems, And History, Bureau Of American Ethnology, Bulletin 28 Edited by Charles P. Bowditch, pp. 11-56. Smithsonian Institution Washington.


Spinden, Herbert J.
1969    Reduction of Mayan dates. In: Papers, 6(4)  Harvard University, Peabody Museum of American Archaeology and Ethnology., Cambridge, MA


Thompson, J. Eric S.
1971    Maya hieroglyphic Writing: An Introduction. Norman: University of Oklahoma Press.

Sunday, December 25, 2011

A Great Maya Calendar for 2012


Hi All,

I just wanted to let you know that Paul Johnson just published his Maya Calendar for 2012. It really is a great product and I buy several each year for friends and family:


and 


The graphics are just beautiful.

Let the countdown begin!

Best,

Carl

Monday, December 19, 2011

Ancient Endings and New Beginnings: Maya Cosmology for 2012*

Carl  Callaway, of Australia’s La Trobe University, cuts through
the hype to look at our current understanding of 21 December 2012.
 The latest advances are fascinating,
 but much remains to be discovered.

December 21, 2012 marks a momentous
occasion on the ancient Maya calendar: the close
of the 13th Bak’tun period from their Long Count
Calendar. This transition is a cyclic event that
occurs approximately once every 5125 years—
every 13 x 144,000 days, to be exact—so the last
time a 13th Bak’tun ended was at the start of the
current Maya era, on 11 August 3114 BC. It was
a day that straddled the cusp of a new era—the
point between a cycle just ended and one about to
begin. Fast forward to today: in the entire corpus
of Classic Maya (250- AD 900) inscriptions, there
is but one surviving text that speaks of 2012,
found in the final passages of the stela known as
Monument 6 at Tortuguero, an archaeological site
in the southernmost part of Tabasco, Mexico.
Final Passage on Tortuguero Mon. 6 (drawing by Sven Gronemeyer)
As 2012 approaches, an exact interpretation
of the Tortuguero inscription has become the
subject of much scholarly and popular debate—a
Google internet search on “Maya 2012 prophecy”
produces a mere 1,200,000 hits! There is no
consensus within current academic discussion
about whether the Tortuguero inscription is
linked to a prophetic statement. Yet that said,
there can be little doubt the ancient Maya would
have seen the date as a numerological echo of
the current era’s start date, and they would
have marked the occasion of 13th Bak’tun with
great solemnity and fanfare—as they had done
throughout their history—erecting temples, altars
and carved stone pillars called stelae. Inscribed
stelae recorded time’s passage (typically in
20-year spans called “k’atuns”) by charting the
sun and moon’s exact positions, as well as by
celebrating those gods and sacred acts thought
to preserve community order and life.

For the ancient Maya time’s custodial gods were
tangible beings resembling humans, worshiped
and deified as living gods (for example, the
number eight was the Maize God). The dedicatory
date on a stele was often expressed in fully
animated portraiture, featuring the custodial
gods of time hoisting, dragging, and carrying the
day and month cycles into place, like packaged
goods being toted to a modern day marketplace.
Copan’s Stela D, from Honduras, illustrates this
time anthropomorphism wonderfully, depicting
personified and animated numbers who carry
Long Count cycles and days’ names in tumplines
strapped across their foreheads. The gods rest
just long enough to be recorded and then return
to fetch a new burden for a new day.
Copan Stela D  (drawing by Linda Schele)
 As mentioned, the last time the end of the 13th
Bak’tun occurred was at the start of the current
Maya era on 11 August 3114 BC. Its modern
notation is 13.0.0.0.0  4 Ajaw 8 Kumk’u. The era
date corresponded to the start of the Maya Long
Count Calendar that tracked the number of days
from a “zero date" or fixed point in time, from
which all mythical and historical dates were later
calculated. Historically, 3114 BC predates Classic
Maya civilization by at least 2500 years, so the
3114 BC zero date was most likely conceived
of as having taken place within the murky,
mythic depths of primordial time—a period of
cosmogenesis when germinal energies awakened
and the drama of creation unfolded. Fortunately
for students of Maya mythology, there are about
fifty ancient Maya inscriptions that detail events
thought to have occurred on this first day of the
new era. According to these texts, day one was
very busy, with at least fifteen distinct events
on the agenda. As a whole, events emphasize the
orderly framework of the cosmos. It is an order
not only related to knowledge of the world, but a
cosmic order that arises out of the great mystery
of the universe—the mysterium tremendum—a
secret that revealed itself both through the Maya
calendar’s intricate mathematical machinations
as well as through the culture’s priestly
divinations.

In virtually every era-day text, this cosmic
order is in some way reaffirmed. One era-day
inscription is found on a chocolate cup known
as the Vase of the Seven Gods . The vase boasts
a fine-line painting that is the mythic “snapshot”
of a pivotal era-day event that occurred in the
underworld mountain palace of God L, who is
pictured on his jaguar throne inside a caiman-topped
temple. Like a group of ancient calendar
priests, the gods gather within the dark interior
of a primordial mountain. The accompanying
Vase K2796 (Photo by Justin Kerr from mayavase.com)

text says that on the day 4 ajaw 8 Kumk'u, the gods
 present were “ordered.” The word—"ts’ak"—that
describes this ordering of the gods is intrinsically
linked to the same eternal and meaningful order
embedded in the natural world: cycles of wind
and rain, sun and moon, light and darkness.
Incidentally, this cosmic order—first practiced by
the gods—later became part of a sacred charter
that governed elite Maya conduct, so ultimately,
cosmic order was the source moral order. The vase scene
also shows that the gods arrive bearing tribute
caches and a bundled altar capped by feathers
(the altar is pictured in the lower register beside
the lower, front-most god seated before God L),
that will likely be set as a foundation stone
to mark this auspicious occasion.

Another era-day passage from Stela C at Quirigua
in Guatemala recounts the next stage in the story,
when four primordial gods set three like-in-kind
altar stones in a triad-based arrangement. A
 Quirigua Stela C (drawing by Annie  Hunter)
                                                                                                           
jaguar-, serpent- and water-stone are placed at the
edge of the sky, at a sacred locale called the New
“Three-Stone” Place. A creation event that is participatory, and where
no single god or causal force brings forth the
world, is a key pan-Mesoamerican idea. As in the
opening chapters of the Popol Vuh, a Colonial-era
document detailing the Quiché Maya creation
story, the world is built not by a single cosmic
force or god, but through a conversation between
two or more primordial gods. Specifically, the
opening chapters of the Popol Vuh state that
the Heart of Sky, along with the Sovereign
and the Quetzal Serpent, created the world
through council, by reaching agreements and
consolidating their ideas. This meeting of the
minds is not unlike how we humans might
initiate a building project: gathering together to
draw up a set of blueprints. Thus every invention,
divine or human, begins with a conversation.

Prior to this renewed order, another era-day
inscription reveals a glimpse of the frenzied
disorder that existed in what were most likely
the nocturnal hours prior to the first dawn. Page
Page 60, Dresden Codex Section a (photo courtesy of FAMSI)
 60 of the Dresden Codex, one of few surviving
Maya screen-fold books, shows two gods engaged
in combat. The god holding a spear thrower
and darts (on the viewer’s right) is Bolon Yokte’.
The deity on the left, under attack, is God N.
What forces of nature do God N and Bolon Yokte’
represent? Brandishing such fearsome weapons
as the spear thrower (and in other cases a rope,
a spear and a shield), the Bolon Yokte’ is shown to
possess a war-like destructive force and is a god
associated in the inscriptions with major calendar
transitions and death (though his exact duties
and profile are yet to be fully understood). God N
is well known as a sky-bearer akin to Atlas from
Greek mythology. An attack by the Bolon Yokte’ is
nothing short of disastrous. Logic dictates that
as God N, the sky-bearer, falls, the sky’s supports
are threatened, and with them, the space-time
continuum. It seems ancient scribes understood
that order only exists in juxtaposition to disorder.

Notably, Bolon Yokte’ is the primary god linked
to the Tortuguero Monument 6’s** inscribed
2012 passage. So Maya scholars must learn
more about this enigmatic deity as a way of fully
understanding the significance of his presence in
the context of the 2012 event.

Maya cosmology is a rich and varied realm that
in part expresses how the cosmic order first
came into being. So while the study of Maya
mythology is still in its infancy, the future holds
great promise for new insights and revelations.
As new texts come to light, scholars continue to
make inroads into the core mythos that shaped
and guided one of the great civilizations of the
Americas. Our hope is that 2012 will be a year
of new discoveries in Maya mythic history—a
year that will have us remembering the gods of
the ancient Maya as they take their rightful place
alongside those of Mesopotamia, Egypt and
Greece.

*This article first appeared in the Dec. 2011 issue of Hacienda Magazine:

**For more information on this text see: