From: John Major Jenkins <kahib@ix.netcom.com>

To: "Hoopes,John W" <hoopes@ku.edu>

Subject: RE: quick questions

Date: Jul 20, 2011 5:04 PM

John,

You have Mayan Sacred Science; it is the same book as Jaloj Kexoj and Phi-64 (1994), which as you previously told me John Carlson sent you an illegal photocopy of.

Journey to the Mayan Underworld (1989) will be serialized  in the 18 monthly issues of Baktun newsletter, which you are welcome to subscribe to like everyone else. I will send you the link when it is ready in the next few weeks, and give you a 50% discount.

Mirror in the Sky, as I've previously mentioned, was a limited edition release and is currently out of print. I can arrange to have a service provide a copy of this rare book for $350. 

Those are the answers to your questions. Now, if you'd be so kind to please respond to my simple questions.  I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt regarding what are a few glaring errors and libelous statements, as to whether these were corrected in the published version. I can easily find the answer by looking at the journal in the local library. 

John Major Jenkins


-----Original Message----- 
From: "Hoopes, John W" 
Sent: Jul 20, 2011 3:12 PM 
To: John Major Jenkins 
Subject: RE: quick questions 


 

 

----Original Message----- 
From: "Hoopes, John W" 

Sent: Jul 20, 2011 3:12 PM 
To: John Major Jenkins 
Subject: RE: quick questions 

Hi John,

 

It's nice hearing from you.  It's been a busy summer and one that is going by all too quickly.

 

I'd like to answer you but I'm disinclined to do so until you're willing to help me.

 

I still need copies of Journey to the Mayan Underworld (Four Ahau Press, Boulder, CO: 1989), Mirror in the Sky (Four Ahau Press, 1991), and Mayan Sacred Science (Four Ahau Press, Boulder, CO: 1994).  They’re cited in lots of different places but almost impossible to find.

 

One you tell me how I can obtain them (photocopies would be adequate), I'll be happy to help with other questions.

 

Saludos,

 

John

 

-----Original Message-----
From: John Major Jenkins [mailto:kahib@ix.netcom.com] 
Sent: Tuesday, July 19, 2011 10:05 AM
To: Hoopes, John W
Subject: quick questions

 

John,

I hope you're having a good summer. There is a PDF of your review of the Aveni & Van Stone books from Archaeoastronomy Journal, on Van Stone's website. Is this the exact same version that was actually published in the Archaeo journal? It's copyrighted to 2009 but included a reference to the (August) 2010 Wayeb 34 essay. So, when was it actually completed, and how is it copyrighted to 2009?  Appreciate your clarifications,

 

John Major Jenkins

http://thecenterfor2012studies.com

 

 

 

Date: Jul 21, 2011 11:32 AM

John Hoopes, 
Do you, at this time, represent as factually correct all your comments and citations in your Review-Essay of Aveni's 2009 book and Van Stone's 2010 book, which appeared in the Archaeoastronomy journal (University of Texas Press)? And can you provide proof for your statements about me? I'm concerned with determining whether your statements are intentionally defamatory or are merely the result of poor research. 

John Major Jenkins

 

 

Date: Jul 21, 2011 12:13 PM

Sue Hausmann
Journals Manager, UT Press
shausmann@utpress.utexas.edu
 
 
 
-----Original Message-----
>From: John Major Jenkins <kahib@ix.netcom.com>
>Sent: Jul 21, 2011 12:10 PM
>To: John Major Jenkins <kahib@ix.netcom.com>
>Subject: archaeo errata
>
>journals@uts.cc.utexas.edu
>Do you strive to correct, or have a policy of correcting in an errata section, factual errors in the material you publish in Archaeoastronomy journal?
>

Didn’t contact her yet

 

To: "Hoopes,John W" <hoopes@ku.edu>

Subject: Your baseless statements

Date: Jul 22, 2011 10:54 AM

John Hoopes,
My question to you involves a matter of whether you published supportable, fact based statements, not whether something is personally "offensive" to me. The published misrepresentation of the facts of a person's life, career, and work is called libel. Please send me the supportive documentation that led you to say that  I once worked as a professional astrologer. Please also send the proof for your statement that my work was "influenced" by Dane Rudyar, and that his work provided "the intellectual underpinnings" for my "claims" about the galaxy. 

I have no idea where you came up these fantasies, which are clearly intended to be damaging.  I've never even tried to work as an astrologer. I've researched and studied astrology, and written critiques of the various assumptions associated with it, but that does not make me a professional astrologer. As for Rudyar, you asked me this question apparently way too late (this past March). Your slanderous presumption was already in press. Since I clarified for you the lack of influence by Rudyar and my lack of familiarity with his work, can you acknowledge and correct your error? Or, if you believe that I was lying to you, can you supply the proof for your statement? Thank you,

John Major Jenkins    

 

 

To: hoopes@ku.edu

Cc: John@Hoopes.com

Subject: Please provide proof for your statements

Date: Jul 27, 2011 10:37 PM

John Hoopes,

I've inquired several times now to clear up this matter. I'm asking a simple question: Can you provide proof for your published statement that I once worked as a professional astrologer?  

John Major Jenkins

 

 

To: Aztlan@lists.famsi.org

Subject: Re: [Aztlan] Mayan Creation

Date: Jul 28, 2011 10:23 AM

Jorge,
 
Thank you for your interest. I’ll try to answer as concisely as possible. The deity associated with the 2012 date on TRT Monument 6, Bolon Yokte, is a usual suspect in Creation narratives that relate to the 3114 date. The calendrical parallelism between the 3114 date and the 2012 date (both are 13.0.0.0.0) is recognized by many Maya scholars. For example, in his summary write-up on his "2012" talk given in May of 2010, John B. Carlson wrote:
 
“It is a reasonable hypothesis to propose that the same cosmogonic entities, presided over by the enigmatic Old God L, would be back for the completion of the next cycle on 13.0.0.0.0, 4 Ahaw 3 Kankin (21 December 2012 C.E.).”
 
So, the parallel is not simply calendrical but extends to the use of deities and, in this case, the “Old God L.” Carlson and Michael Grofe both argue for the relationship between Bolon Yokte and God L. With this link, a more generalized and primordial archetype of First Father or “First Shaman” is suggested, and Carlson writes that God L is
 
“essentially the ‘First Shaman” or “First Priest,’ the primary Maya God of Medicine and Curing. ... Old God L is the senior cosmogonic god at least by the Late Classic Period, who presides over the gathering of supernaturals for the almost endless cyclical renewals or re-creations of the Maya cosmos in the great 13 Baktun cycle the cycle that will complete and continue on, once again around December 21st, 2012 C.E.”  (For citation source see "Evidence that 2012 Represents a New Creation, or Worldrenewal" at http://www.thecenterfor2012studies.com/2012center-note10.pdf)
  
I call attention to Carlson’s conceptualization of 2012 in terms of renewal and re-creations. This situation, of course, is not at all surprising for a culture that viewed time in terms of cycles. And we don’t have to choose a 13-Baktun cycle versus a 20-Baktun cycle. (The reasons why were discussed in my email exchange with Ed Barnhart: http://thecenterfor2012studies.com/Email-exchange-Barnhart-Jenkins.pdf.) Any period ending, big or small, is a type of cyclic renewal. The ubiquitous idea in Maya ritual (evident in Classic Period inscriptions as well as among the modern Maya ceremonialists) is that period endings (big or small) are times of renewal accompanied by ceremonies involving sacrifice. The larger periods are more likely to carry the connotation of worldrenewal.
 
The relationship between God L and the modern Maximon cult deity figure was explored by Michael Grofe in his 2009 essay, Wayeb Note 30 (http://www.wayeb.org/notes/wayeb_notes0030.pdf). This connects the Bolon Yokte deity with a modern survival that relates to deity sacrifice at a period ending (the Tun) in order to facilitate worldrenewal. It is now conflated with Semana Santa and Easter. My research into the larger context of the TRT inscriptions, which help us understand Lord Jaguar’s role in the 2012 ceremony and his use of the 2012 date (both of which relate to the idea of worldrenewal in 2012), is treated in my 2010 SAA essay and the 2010 MEC-Facebook discussion, both of which are posted at The Center for 2012 Studies website. For additional references and more details, I suggest also reading Occasional Notes 4 and 10 at The Center for 2012 Studies (http://thecenterfor2012studies.com). 
 
The Tortuguero information ultimately lends credence to my reconstructing of the 2012 astronomy and ideology at Izapa, but that's another story (see my 2009 book The 2012 Story). Best wishes,
 
John Major Jenkins
 
 
Jorge wrote:
>
>I am very interested in knowing why you are calling 4 Ajaw 3 K'ank'in a creation date. Would you mind giving a short summary of your reasons to consider it a creation date?
>
>Jorge

 

 

To: hoopes@ku.edu

Cc: John@Hoopes.com

Subject: Re: Please provide proof for your statements

Date: Aug 2, 2011 8:25 PM

John Hoopes,

Hello?

I just invited you, four times, to be accountable for the unwarranted, defamatory, and factually incorrect comments you made about me in your published review-essay.  I gave you the benefit of the doubt and an opportunity to explain and clarify.   Shall I characterize your behavior as 1) unconscionable, 2) reprehensible 3) an inability to think critically, or 4) ignorant?  I'd like to know asap, for the piece I'm writing for a well-known popular magazine.

John Major Jenkins     

 

 

To: Aztlan@lists.famsi.org

Subject: Re: [Aztlan] scorpion in Meso-American lore

Date: Aug 6, 2011 11:08 PM

Rick,
 
Please read Ruud van Akkeren's essay "The Turtle and the Scorpion": 
http://www.utmesoamerica.org/texas_notes/TN-73.pdf
 
The information that you've encountered is one of the several interlocking pieces of evidence that indicate how the base of the Milky Way tree between Sagittarius and Scorpio, which is visually perceived as the nuclear bulge of our Milky Way's center and is pierced by the southern terminus of the dark rift in the Milky Way, was thought of as female and a birth place. Additional evidence for this understanding was cited and discussed in my 1998 book Maya Cosmogenesis 2012. Also check out van Akkeren's very interesting book "Place of the Lord's Daughter." Best wishes,  
 
John Major Jenkins
 
 
Rick wrote: 
While reading Brian Stross excellent article on the Popol Vuh and its translations, I noticed that he related scorpion sinan "scorpion" with sinaaj (vel sim) "to bear, give birth" (spelling off the top of my head) and concluded that scorpions represent a feminine aspect.
>Now, in Nawat, scorpion kulu-t (see Nahuatl colo-tl) is decidedly masculine. There is a scene in Myths in the Mother Tongue of the Pipiles of Izalco where a stepfather-ogre asks a group of boys to show their "scorpions". They are shocked and avenge themselves by cutting off his "scorpion" and feeding it to his widow, who remarked on how stiff and hard the meat is. 
>This brings me to The Blowgunner Vase from Tikal, I believe. Here one of the hero twins, Jun Ajaw, I believe, is shooting Itzam-Yeh/Vucub Caquix from the World Tree. There is a scorpion on the trunk of the tree. So what is the scorpion's purpose and meaning here --other than the Constellation Scorpius swooping down to chase away the Big Dipper. etc.

 

 

To: Aztlan@lists.famsi.org

Subject: Re: [Aztlan] scorpion in Meso-American lore

Date: Aug 7, 2011 11:36 AM

Yes, it's important that K1226 and the role of the scorpion be compared to a larger set of iconographic parallels. The van Akkeren link I sent discusses the astronomical references, confirming the ideology of birth at the celestial location depicted. The paw or foot at the tree, near the scorpion, is part of a complex of ideas that point to the location of these scenes as the base of the Milky Way. (One of these can be seen at the base of the tree on the San Bartolo mural, as I pointed out in a 2006 article.) In the context of God L and Bolon Yokte, these iconographic and astronomical parallels were discussed by Michael Grofe in Wayeb No. 30: 
http://www.wayeb.org/notes/wayeb_notes0030.pdf.  In relation to this he also discusses elsewhere the astronomical reference of the GI head at the base of the tree on the tablet from the Temple of the Cross at Palenque. These and other examples reinforce the interpretation that the Milky Way was frequently portrayed as a tree (or a composite "caiman-tree"). The various elements of this region of the "base" of the Milky Way (including the crossroads (of the Milky Way and the ecliptic) and the dark rift in the Milky Way) then become identifiable in the iconography. The scorpion clue that Rick alludes to is one of the Maya constellations that shares the same image as the Western constellation --- possibly because the curving tail and stinger visually suggest that identification.
 
John Major Jenkins
 
 
 
 
>The vessel That Mr. McCallister refers to (K1226 in the Mayavase Database
>has been discussed and published by many scholars. It seems that it is in
>the realm of possibility that the artist that painted this vase was
>referring to more than one story or two stories that interlocked. Some
>corrections, the vase does not come from Tikal. It falls into the Codex
>style and therefore comes from the Northern Peten, probably from the Mirador
>Basin. The scorpion does not hug the tree but hangs in the lower register as
>does the snake. It has been suggested that the image refers to a celestial
>event as well as the shooting of Vucub Caquix by the Hero Twin Hun Ahaw
>(Hunaphu). In my original publication, and discussion in the Maya Vase Book,
>Vol.1, I pointed out that the Jaguar paw on the tree as well as the scorpion
>might represent other characters. In the case of the jaguar paw it might
>represent Hun Ahaw's brother, Yax Balam (Xbalanque) [the paw is very similar
>to the jaguar paw on the mask of Yax Balam on K511] and there is evidence
>that that scorpion represents the father of the Twins ( K4546), The Maize
>God. (Hun Hunahpu). However, this vase should not be discussed in limbo, but
>must be considered along with K4546 in which we have the same scene of the
>shooting of the nasty bird but three blowgunners are present replacing both
>the scorpion and the snake. 
>
>Just an aside, on K4546 note that the blowgun has split, either the artist
>wanted to emphasize the pellet or create a rational for the pellet not
>killing the bird but only hitting his jaw and knocking out his teeth. The
>bird, as we know, is eventually killed by poison. 
>
>Justin Kerr
>
>
 
 
>While reading Brian Stross excellent article on the Popol Vuh and its
>translations, I noticed that he related scorpion sinan "scorpion" with
>sinaaj (vel sim) "to bear, give birth" (spelling off the top of my head) and
>concluded that scorpions represent a feminine aspect.
>
>Now, in Nawat, scorpion kulu-t (see Nahuatl colo-tl) is decidedly masculine.
>There is a scene in Myths in the Mother Tongue of the Pipiles of Izalco
>where a stepfather-ogre asks a group of boys to show their "scorpions". They
>are shocked and avenge themselves by cutting off his "scorpion" and feeding
>it to his widow, who remarked on how stiff and hard the meat is. 
>
>This brings me to The Blowgunner Vase from Tikal, I believe. Here one of the
>hero twins, Jun Ajaw, I believe, is shooting Itzam-Yeh/Vucub Caquix from the
>World Tree. There is a scorpion on the trunk of the tree. So what is the
>scorpion's purpose and meaning here --other than the Constellation Scorpius
>swooping down to chase away the Big Dipper. etc.
>Rick McCallister

 

 

 

To: Johan Normark <johan_normark@hotmail.com>

Subject: RE: responding to your "critique" - resending

Date: Aug 10, 2011 9:39 AM

Dear Johan,

I will have to take some time to read your interesting PDF article. To address the immediate question at hand, I'm concerned about your misleading characterization of my work in your mini-review on your blog. You clarified, below, that you don't believe that I encouraged people (in my book The 2012 Story) to take LSD on December 21, 2012. Then why did you insinuate such a thing on your blog? Do you think that is honest and fair?  There are several other similar items in your "review."  As for the correction of factoids like neolithic vs. paleolithic time divisions, I acknowledge and appreciate those kinds of corrections.  No book of almost 500 pages can be free of such mistakes.  

I assume you considered your review to be some kind of justifiable retribution for the strong stance I took towards Stuart's complete failure to accurately summarize my work, and his opinionated defamation of me, personally, and my work generally. I certainly don't want to generate bad feelings between us, and I'd like to sketch the history of my dealings with professional scholars, like Stuart, going back to 1991. I spent years being extremely yielding and patient with scholars, encouraging feedback, delicately inviting discussion and a consideration of my work and views on 2012. I've observed over the years a high degree of ego-politics within academia, reprehensible sabotaging, and ignorance.  I expected scholars to practice the principles of honest and unbiased assessment. In my experience, and especially in regard to their treatment of me and my work, I don't find this to be true. And this became evident long ago, before I started to take a "no more mister nice guy" approach.   

And here we are closing in on 2012. Scholars have stepped into the 2012 marketplace in a timely way, jockeying for market share and royalties. As they look at the topic, primarily through the explicit occurrence of the date on the Tortuguero monument or via critiquing the 2012 marketplace of the "2012 phenomenon" (a term I coined), they find that I'm sitting there waiting for them. I've critiqued the 2012 goofball theories, have published and presented on the Tortuguero astronomy, and have a well argued and documented theory about the original intention behind the 2012 date --- one that NO professional scholar has adequately treated or accurately summarized. But if they arrange their thoughts into any kind of coherent viewpoint on 2012, as we see happening in Carlson's or Callaway's recent papers (Cambridge University anthology), we find that they are reiterated viewpoints I elucidated more than a decade ago. 

So, I can appreciate that my direct approach to Stuart and other scholars triggers a strong reaction in you and others. I'm sure the question arises as to why that is necessary.  Imagine that your work was consistently misrepresented, appropriated, or distorted,  that you were spuriously associated with theories and authors who you yourself had critically evaluated and exposed as ludicrous, and you had been unfairly attacked on Wikipedia, Youtube, in international news outlets, in professional acadmeic journals, and were accused of things that are completely false. That is reprehensible and deserves a strong defensive reaction. In fact, I probably should have checked out of Hotel Earth by now. 

So, please try to be more responsible in your treatment of my work. It's fine for you to register your disagreements with my viewpoints on Maya cosmology. But the loose editorializing and misleadingly flippant comments (such as the LSD comment) is not only inaccurate but is also libelous. It's amazing to me that professional scholars are more willing to spread propaganda designed for character assassination, rather than engage the arguments and evidence I've offered in a pioneering field. The problem, again, is that scholars are having a hard time acknowledging that I did the pioneering work in this area.  It was only a few short years ago that scholars were almost unanimous in thinking that 2012 was a non-topic, unworthy of serious consideration, and that the ancient Maya had no concept at all of 2012. I realized, in my research, that this was not an accurate approach to the topic almost twenty years ago.  Now we have the Tulane "2012" conference that happened in February 2009. Maybe you should comment on my effort to document the scholarly attitudes toward 2012 that emerged in that conference, which I discussed at length in my book The 2012 Story. I've had the courage to question scholars on their assumptions, to confront Aveni in a public forum, and transcribe and publish the results word-for-word.  And I don't crave the approval of scholars, as you suggested on your blog, I merely expect them to be responsible and do their jobs. 

Over the last months I've been posting numerous research reports and essays on The Center for 2012 Studies, http://thecenterfor2012studies.com Please take a serious look at the work I'm doing on the Tortuguero inscriptions, including my report on my examination of Monument 6 at the closed museum in Mexico, this past March. My close-up photos demand a re-rendering of the line drawings of the P4 glyph, and disproves Gronemeyer's larger range for the Distance Number that generates Lord Jaguar's birthday. Best wishes,

John

 
  

            

-----Original Message----- 
From: Johan Normark 
Sent: Aug 6, 2011 11:21 AM 
To: kahib@ix.netcom.com 
Subject: RE: responding to your "critique" - resending 


Hi,
 
OK, here is my rather delayed response.
 
No, I do not think that you encourage people to take LSD on that date. However, you mention LSD as a way to reach a transrational state and a higher conciousness which I assume your interpretation of 2012 ultimately is about. 
 
I do not contribute to Wikipedia. 
 
My article is called "Maya chaosmos: 2600 years on the cave's path" (published in the Swedish Americanit Journal Acta Americana earlier this year). It is not so much about a critique of "Maya cosmos" but rather a critique of the "cosmological turn" in Maya (cave) studies in general. It is basically a shortened version of my former project on caves, settlement and climate change in the Cochuah region (west-central Quintana Roo and southern Yucatan). My main agenda is to work against the anthropocentric perspectives that dominate (Maya) archaeology and related disciplines. Instead of focusing on transcendent cosmology I set the focus on immanent processes of becoming in cave assemblages. This is kind of the opposite way of reasoning that I believe you are arguing for (inspirations come from Lucretius, Spinoza, Nietzsche, Bergson, Whitehead, Deleuze, DeLanda, Latour, Harman, etc.). Chaosmos is the virtuality from where chaos or cosmos may emerge (to use a Deleuzian/Whiteheadian terminology). Cosmology is simply an anthropocentric perspective that is idealistic and transcendent/hierarchical. Focusing on such an idealized pattern is seldom in touch with how things are assembled in reality. Caves do determine where settlements emerge and anthropocentric perspectives do tend to miss that point.
 
I am trying to get hold of the pdf file of my article to publish it on my Academia.edu profile: http://gu-se.academia.edu/JohanNormark. I will post it on my blog when that happens.
 
Best wishes,
 
Johan Normark

 

 

To: "aztlan@lists.famsi.org" <aztlan@lists.famsi.org>

Subject: Re: [Aztlan] 2012: End of the world?

Date: Aug 23, 2011 7:36 PM

Just a brief note, and a reminder of the recent work being done to understand 2012 ("Archaeoastronomy and Ethnoastronomy: Building Bridges between Cultures," ed. Clive Ruggles, Cambridge University Press, 2011:  http://journals.cambridge.org/action/displayJournal?jid=IAU). I think it's very unfortunate to constantly frame the 2012 topic as an "End of the World?" question. I think it's pretty clear by now that the "end of the world" hysteria is a pop culture, mass-media-fed red herring, designed, in fact, to distract us from treating the 2012 topic with the seriousness that it deserves. We endlessly hear of Maya scholars saying "no evidence for doomsday" --- this is like a genetic biologist assuring us that storks don't deliver babies. Obviously, to anyone who has spent time with the 2012-related evidence and material, this is true. Since the date occurs on Tortuguero Monument 6, we must accept that the 2012 date is, as I've been suggesting for over two decades, a "true artifact" of ancient Maya thought. If we can get past the doomsday hype -- whether we subscribe to it or are merely transfixed by the silliness it attracts  --- we may actually begin to make progress in understanding how the Maya, particularly Lord Jaguar from Tortuguero, utilized the 2012 period-ending date in all of its multifarious astronomical, political, ceremonial, and ideological ramifications.   
 
John Major Jenkins
http://thecenterfor2012studies.com 
 
-----Forwarded Message-----
>From: "Dunkelman, Arthur" <adunkelman@kislak.com>
>Sent: Aug 23, 2011 12:03 PM
>To: "aztlan@lists.famsi.org" <aztlan@lists.famsi.org>
>Subject: [Aztlan] 2012: End of the world?
>
>2012: End of the world?
>
>David Stuart, expert on Maya history and culture, will speak about the global hysteria surrounding the Maya "end-of-the-world" prophesies for December 2012. Dr. Stuart will discuss the true meaning of the Maya calendar and imagery at the Library of Congress on September 16th (Spoiler alert: Dr. Stuart says these predictions are premature.)
>
>Author of a new book, The Order of Days: The Maya World and the Truth about 2012, Dr. Stuart is a professor of Mesoamerican art and writing at the University of Texas at Austin. He began deciphering Maya hieroglyphs at the age of eight and at 18 was the youngest-ever recipient of a MacArthur Fellowship "genius grant" for his study of ancient inscriptions.
>
>Presenting the fifth Jay I. Kislak Lecture at the Library of Congress, Dr. Stuart will interpret what ancient Maya records actually had to say about time and the cosmos. According to his research, the real intellectual achievement of ancient Maya timekeeping is far more impressive than any of the popular outrageous claims about this advanced civilization.
>
>About the lecture:
>Friday, Sept. 16, 2011, at 7 p.m., Library of Congress, Coolidge Auditorium, Thomas Jefferson Building, 10 First St., SE, Washington, DC. Deciphering the Art of the Ancient Maya and the Year 2012<http://www.loc.gov/rr/hispanic/events.html>, open to the public free of charge.
 
-----Original Message-----
>From: "Dunkelman, Arthur" <adunkelman@kislak.com>
>Sent: Aug 23, 2011 12:03 PM
>To: "aztlan@lists.famsi.org" <aztlan@lists.famsi.org>
>Subject: [Aztlan] 2012: End of the world?
>
>2012: End of the world?
>
>David Stuart, expert on Maya history and culture, will speak about the global hysteria surrounding the Maya "end-of-the-world" prophesies for December 2012. Dr. Stuart will discuss the true meaning of the Maya calendar and imagery at the Library of Congress on September 16th (Spoiler alert: Dr. Stuart says these predictions are premature.)
>
>Author of a new book, The Order of Days: The Maya World and the Truth about 2012, Dr. Stuart is a professor of Mesoamerican art and writing at the University of Texas at Austin. He began deciphering Maya hieroglyphs at the age of eight and at 18 was the youngest-ever recipient of a MacArthur Fellowship "genius grant" for his study of ancient inscriptions.
>
>Presenting the fifth Jay I. Kislak Lecture at the Library of Congress, Dr. Stuart will interpret what ancient Maya records actually had to say about time and the cosmos. According to his research, the real intellectual achievement of ancient Maya timekeeping is far more impressive than any of the popular outrageous claims about this advanced civilization.
>
>About the lecture:
>Friday, Sept. 16, 2011, at 7 p.m., Library of Congress, Coolidge Auditorium, Thomas Jefferson Building, 10 First St., SE, Washington, DC. Deciphering the Art of the Ancient Maya and the Year 2012<http://www.loc.gov/rr/hispanic/events.html>, open to the public free of charge.
>
>About the book:
>The Order of Days: The Maya World and the Truth about 2012<http://www.amazon.com/Order-Days-World-Truth-About/dp/0385527268/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1313410209&sr=8-1>, by David Stuart, published 5/17/2011 by Harmony Books, hardcover, 368 pages, $24.00

 

 

To: michael ruggeri <michaelruggeri@mac.com>

Subject: Re: 2012 QUERY FROM JOHN MAJOR JENKINS

Date: Aug 26, 2011 8:17 AM

I understand. But my post was actually an appeal to cease any kind of treatment of the "New Age" silliness (even if it is in the context of rational criticism of it by professional scholars) from that which addresses how the ancient Maya were actually thinking about it. I can see how the reality is problematic for sifting through the deluge of emails that must happen. Perhaps, as I think might have been suggested in the past, a sub-list-serve on this specific topic could be set up, moderated by others you could select.  Hoopes? Van Stone? Normak? Sitler?   The defining limits should probably exclude what the modern Maya are doing with 2012 (since that is almost always infiltrated by modern theories), and focus on the evidence for what the ancient Maya thought about it. We already have a spectrum of approaches to this in the papers by Grofe (astronomy), Callaway (Era Base Creation myth parallels), Carlson (deity roles, sacrifice and worldrenewal) and MacLeod (TRT Mon 6, period-ending ceremonialism). Just some thoughts. 
 
 
 
-----Original Message-----
>From: michael ruggeri <michaelruggeri@mac.com>
>Sent: Aug 25, 2011 9:46 PM
>To: John Major Jenkins <kahib@ix.netcom.com>
>Cc: Hixon Dave <aztlandave@yahoo.com>, Schwaller Fritz <schwallr@potsdam.edu>
>Subject: 2012 QUERY FROM JOHN MAJOR JENKINS
>
>John,
>
>Here is our problem. You may remember that we had to suspend the topic awhile ago because of the volume of New Age and SciFi posts we were getting. I posted a few recently, including yours, since they were to the point, and then we got a volume of the usual stuff backed up. We have to decide how we will proceed. If we post yours, then what about the others? So this is a big problem for us. We cannot devolve into a New Age listserv, but it will if we continue posting 2012 stuff. We are waiting for our 3rd moderator to come back from the field so that we can make a decision together on this. 
>
>I am posting this to the other two moderators, so they can read what I have said here.
>
>Mike
>
>
>On Aug 25, 2011, at 10:11 PM, John Major Jenkins wrote:
>
>> Michael,
>> 
>> Is there something wrong with my post, responding to Jorge? I've sent it two or three times. You'll notice that I overlooked his several flippant comments about "2012 nonsense" and provided a completely valid call for proactively continuing an open-minded investigation of TRT Monument 6, including the astronomy / archaeoastronomy, which has never been discussed on Aztlan. I think it is important for the Aztlan community to recognize that 2012 can be considered a viable topic for investigation, outside of it's carnival marketplace associations.  That is how I have always thought of it, and that is how some scholars are now treating it, as can be seen by Carlson's, Grofe's, Callaway's, and MacLeod's Cambridge papers. And my 2010 SAA paper. (Note: these are approaches that are not, like Hoopes's and largely Stuart's approach, just "debunking" and denouncing people and ideas.) Is Aztlan going to be open to discussing 2012 proactively? What is your policy going to be as we get closer to the date and the two additional 2012 anthologies are published?  
>> 
>> John 

 

 

To: Barb MacLeod <bmacleod@austin.rr.com>

Subject: Re: [Aztlan] 2012: End of the world?

Date: Aug 29, 2011 6:53 PM

offlist
 
Hi Barb,
 
I'm glad your post was allowed through. Thank you for addressing the distinction between reactionary denials and proactive investigative scholarship, a framing of the ongoing problem that echoes the second post I sent last week, unfortunately rejected by Ruggeri. It is below if you'd like to read it. 
 
While my post reflects the same distinction that you suggested, I also was trying to nudge the discussion in the direction of acknowledging the astronomical component of TRT Monument 6. As the 2012 discussion moves forward, how do you anticipate this material being acknowledged? Do you think it has any merit, or usefulness, in helping us understand the larger motivations and intentions of Lord Jaguar? If it is introduced through Grofe's findings, how do we provide space for the discussion of the similarity of those findings to the astronomy I've been exploring for 17 years? Or should that be considered off the map, a New Age nuisance, not admissible, poppycock?
 
My report on my examination of TRT Monument 6 this past March, which I posted and announced in July, provided physical evidence in photos, clearly showing proportions of the "5" number bar and spacing to the edge of the monument. Upon this, I based my confirmation that the K'in portion of the DN must be between 6 and 10. I note that in your Wayeb 34 with Sven, his preferred larger DN is still being used. Michael tended to default to this position, probably out of diplomacy, but of course the likelihood of the smaller DN came up as a distinct possibility in the MEC-Facebook discussion last December. This was one of the things I wanted to settle in my field trip to TRT in March. I wonder if my definitive confirmation of the smaller DN will ever be cited, or if scholars will just start assuming it? Did I reinvent the light-bulb? I have never seen any analysis of close up photos, resulting in a very clear conclusion. I'd assume that if that already existed, Sven would have had to accept it.  
 
Another item I was able to bring some clarity to was Bahlam Ajaw's birthday. Have you read my argument for the greater likelihood of "10" in the Kin position, thus his birthday being Nov 28, 612 AD (J), 12 Ajaw? My argument for Nov 30 was calendrical and based on the T-shape of the monument. I suggested that of the 5 possible birth dates, Nov 28 and Nov 30 stand out as being of the greatest likelihood. Each of them is within one day (Nov 29) of the precise SY commensuration with 13.0.0.0.0 in 2012. 
 
Do you consider my TRT report on Monument 6 (at http://www.thecenterfor2012studies.com/) to be a cite-able reference? Or can I anticipate that it will be ignored and should I seek other officially approved avenues of publication? I'm sure that Carlson would love to publish something by me, especially since his own "Lord of Creation" and worldrenewal ideas about 2012 so closely reflect my own. I found it highly odd that Van Stone, Hoopes, and a few others expressed little interest in making the time to read it. Since my close-up photo of the P4 glyph called into question the accuracy of the currently used line drawing, I thought there should have been an immediate response / assessment.  I'm well aware that it is this kind of thing that makes me so despised, so if you have any thoughts as to how to pry open some eyes, let me know. I guess I'm wondering if this will just continue and I should toss in the towel now. 
 
Beyond all this, I have several items of investigation with the TRT monuments that I would like to discuss with you, if you have the time and feel inclined. Best wishes,
 
John Major Jenkins 

 

 

To: Robert Sitler <rsitler@stetson.edu>

Subject: Re: You OK?

Date: Sep 1, 2011 7:46 PM

Hi Robert,
I apologize for striking out for clarification. I obviously projected more angst into your citation of Malmstrom than was really there.  I attempt to police the avalanche of polemical denunciations of me, and related confusions, and get overwhelmed. Hoopes and Carlson are being a lot of this. I see that you were openly pointing out a rather vicious treatment of my work by a scholar, Malmstrom. Lacking support and reality-check systems, I go sort of crazy. 
 
Thanks for saying hello. When is the cruise? I think I received an invite, but it got buried. Let me know. Best wishes,
 
John
 
 
-----Original Message-----
>From: Robert Sitler <rsitler@stetson.edu>
>Sent: Sep 1, 2011 7:16 PM
>To: "kahib@ix.netcom.com" <kahib@ix.netcom.com>
>Subject: You OK?
>
>Hi John,
>
>I didn't hear back from my last two messages so I just wanted to make sure all is well with you.
>
>Also, are you considering going on that cruise they're having for 2012? I think June and I are going to go and Gaspar said he's coming. I hope you consider it because it would make the experience much more fun.
>
>All the best from DeLand,
>roberto

 

Subject: RE: You OK?

Date: Sep 2, 2011 10:34 AM

Robert,
I don't feel I want to do that cruise, notwithstanding the fact that they are using my work to promote it and brand it. I hope that if you go you have a lot of fun.
 
John 
 
-----Original Message-----
>From: Robert Sitler <rsitler@stetson.edu>
>Sent: Sep 2, 2011 5:06 AM
>To: John Major Jenkins <kahib@ix.netcom.com>
>Subject: RE: You OK?
>
>Glad all is well. Yes, your right, I was trying to subtly point to Malmstrom's lack of professionalism, not validate his point of view. Oh well.
>
>In any case, we're tentatively thinking about going on a cruise for the solstice next year. It's actually entitled the Mayan Galactic Alignment cruise:   http://www.mayancruise2012.com/      I realize you likely have plans to be in Izapa or elsewhere, but I hope you'll consider accepting that invitation if it works for you. I'm sure you could bring Ellen along for free as well. The down side is that it will be a boat full of people with wild ideas about the date, but that's nothing new.   Hope you'll keep it in mind as a possibility. 
>_______________________________________________________________
>Robert K. Sitler
>Latin American Studies Program and  Dept. of Modern Languages & Literatures
>Stetson University                      DeLand, Florida  32723

 

 

From: John Major Jenkins <kahib@ix.netcom.com>

To: shausmann@utpress.utexas.edu

Subject: Hoopes's statements in Archaeoastronomy, from John Major Jenkins

Date: Sep 8, 2011 2:41 PM

Dear Sue Hausmann,
 
Thank you for your attention to this issue. The PDF of John Hoopes' review in Vol XXII of Archaeoastronomy was freely posted on Mark Van Stone's website, and that is where I accessed it. The statements in question are found in the right column of page 143:
 
"The "2012 Phenomenon" makes much more sense in the context of astrology than astronomy, as becomes clear from the influence of astrologer Dane Rudyar on New Age prophet and 2012 guru Jose Arguelles and on John Major Jenkins (who once worked as a professional astrologer) ..."
 
(further down the column):
 
"His [Rudyar's] book The Planetarization of Consciousness (1970) helped inspire the first Whole Earth Festival while The Sun is Also a Star (1975) provided the intellectual underpinnings for claims by Arguelles (for whom Rudyar was a personal mentor) and Jenkins about ancient Maya concerns with the movements of the Sun relative to the Milky Way galaxy.   ... astrology is a psuedocientific "fringe" discipline."
 
I am not a professional astrologer, never have been and never tried to work as one. An early book of mine (1992) criticized pop / causal astrology. Hoopes's intent to defame is evident in the (false) identification of me as a professional astrologer, in the misleading association of my astronomical reconstruction work with an astrological context, and with the assertion that astrology is pseudoscience. I informed Hoopes by email quite some time ago that I was only vaguely familiar with the name Rudyar. Having subsequently looked into Rudyar's writings, I find that they have nothing to do with my reconstruction of precessional astronomy in ancient Mesoamerica, nor the arguments and evidence I've brought to bear on my thesis --- accept for the shared use of the term "galactic." Since I know my work to be, and present it as being, unprecedented, and I don't credit Rudyar with it, Hoopes's statement is tantamount to an accusation of plagiarism.  These are very serious lapses in  scholarly professionalism, accountability, and ethics. It's unfortunate that such comments were not flagged for checking, and that they've already appeared in print. They are totally false, designed for defamation. Even the trade publishers I've worked will flag questionable comments for checking, as a standard procedure. I've tried to seek a response from Hoopes, or an explanation, but he has refused to respond. 
 
My suggested solution:
 
1. Facilitating a response from Hoopes
2. A printed correction in a future edition
 
A possible future problem must also be addressed. As I mentioned on the phone, my additional concern is that Hoopes's under-informed and incorrect statements will appear in Hoopes's forthcoming essay in the next Archaeoastronomy journal, which features papers on 2012 by MacLeod, Grofe, Callaway, Carlson, and other presenters from the 2011 Oxford IX Archaeoastronomy conference in Peru. Since there is such a highly politicized climate around the 2012 topic, and much misinformation about my work and ideas, I would prefer that I would be allowed to vet for accuracy anything that was written about me and my work in the pages of Archaeoastronomy journal. Thank you for your time. Best wishes,
 
John Major Jenkins
kahib@ix.netcom.com

 

 

 

o: "Hoopes,John W" <hoopes@ku.edu>

Cc: John B Carlson <tlaloc@umd.edu>, Jorge Pérez de Lara Elías <jorgepl@estudioelias.com>, Barb MacLeod <bmacleod@austin.rr.com>, Campion <n.campion@tsd.ac.uk>, Callaway <ccallaway@students.latrobe.edu.au>, Van Stone <mvanstone@swccd.edu>

Subject: RE: [Aztlan] 2012: End of the world?

Date: Sep 2, 2011 2:32 PM

John Hoopes, 
 
It's quite clear you haven't read the IAU papers under consideration, or you are simply selectively not seeing the actual words that were being used in those papers. The ideas that arose among the papers by Carlson, MacLeod, and Callaway, involve (ideologically) "transformation", a "return", "renewal", "creation myth" repetitions, cyclic ties between 3114 and 2012, and so on. Where an astronomical component is identified, in Grofe's paper, we have a reference to the same alignment scenario that is the centerpiece of my work. I suppose you will never be able to acknowledge this, because you can't practice unbiased scholarship if I am in any way involved. This is amply proven by your unsupportable and libelous statements about me that you have already published in the recent Archaeoastronomy journal. Your  behavior is shameless and unprofessional.          
 
As for your odd assessment that I drew my interpretations of Izapa cosmology, regarding how the future period ending in 2012 was thought about, from previous literature --- that's quite impossible my friend. Show me the citations. I've honestly shared with you the sequence of my unfolding work, leading me to an unprecedented reconstruction, but you chose to ignore that and instead propagated false defamatory statements that you have refused to explain or defend. If you think you can, please do so now. You know what I'm talking about.
 
Please read the section on Izapa in my 1998 book Maya Cosmogenesis 2012. As any good scholar will do, I cite and build upon previous work, but my conclusions about how 2012 was conceived by the originators of the Long Count paradigm, which I believe was conceived at Izapa, were an interdisciplinary synthesis of my new findings on the archaeoastronomy at the site. No one had ever approached Izapa in this way with calendrical origins in mind, interpreting the archaeoastronomy, Creation Myth imagery, and iconographic ideology. 2012 was never previously elucidated in this way in the literature, and yet my interpretations were quite understandable and consistent with Maya astronomy and cosmology, if all the pieces of evidence were put together. It's just that no one had done it before.      
 
We could debate the various points of my reconstruction. However, that isn't the point here. My simple point was that 1) debunker scholars, like you, believe that my ideas about 2012 are nonsense; 2) those same ideas have just appeared in the first scholarly collection of articles on 2012. I'd submit that there is a large gulf of cognitive dissonance happening here, driven by an irrational and politicized environment that is maintained by a few undiscerning "critics" who aren't actually practicing scholarship, but something else entirely.    
 
John Major Jenkins
 
The Center for 2012 Studies
http://thecenterfor2012studies.com
 
 
 
l Message-----
>From: "Hoopes, John W" <hoopes@ku.edu>
>Sent: Sep 2, 2011 1:05 PM
>To: John Major Jenkins <kahib@ix.netcom.com>
>Cc: John B Carlson <tlaloc@umd.edu>, Jorge Pérez de Lara Elías <jorgepl@estudioelias.com>, Barb MacLeod <bmacleod@austin.rr.com>, Campion <n.campion@tsd.ac.uk>, Callaway <ccallaway@students.latrobe.edu.au>, Van Stone <mvanstone@swccd.edu>
>Subject: RE: [Aztlan] 2012: End of the world?
>
>Dear John,
>
>My thoughts, for what it's worth, are that your astronomical and ideological proposals about how the ancient Maya thought about 2012 are NOT being reiterated or echoed by any of the scholars in the recent Cambridge IAU 287 publication.
>
>How do we address the fact that you found those same ideas too?  I think it's clear from your publications that you were reading the work of earlier authors.  The most parsimonious explanation is that you found them in the literature.
>
>John

 

 

 

From: John Major Jenkins <kahib@ix.netcom.com>

To: "Hoopes,John W" <hoopes@ku.edu>

Cc: John B Carlson <tlaloc@umd.edu>, Jorge Pérez de Lara Elías <jorgepl@estudioelias.com>, Barb MacLeod <bmacleod@austin.rr.com>, Campion <n.campion@tsd.ac.uk>, Callaway <ccallaway@students.latrobe.edu.au>, Van Stone <mvanstone@swccd.edu>

Subject: Re: [Aztlan] 2012: End of the world?

Date: Sep 2, 2011 11:58 AM

John Hoopes,
 
But the general fact remains: Izapa is on the map for LC origins, according to the scholars who have studied it.  
 
Now, again, if we can have closure with your diversion, which I responded to, can you please address what I actually put on the table in my email? I notice that it's been stripped out of the email sequence below, so I'll restate it again:
 
"What are your thoughts on the fact that my astronomical and ideological proposals about how the ancient Maya thought about 2012, which you can find expressed in my book Maya Cosmogenesis 2012 (1998), are being reiterated or echoed by scholars in the recent Cambridge IAU 278 publication? I honor the different routes and investigative acumen that has led them to their respective positions, but how do we address the fact that I found those same ideas too, in my study of Izapa?" 
 
John Major Jenkins
The Center for 2012 Studies
http://thecenterfor2012studies.com
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
-----Original Message-----
>From: "Hoopes, John W" <hoopes@ku.edu>
>Sent: Sep 2, 2011 11:24 AM
>To: John Major Jenkins <kahib@ix.netcom.com>
>Cc: John B Carlson <tlaloc@umd.edu>, Jorge Pérez de Lara Elías <jorgepl@estudioelias.com>, Barb MacLeod <bmacleod@austin.rr.com>, Campion <n.campion@tsd.ac.uk>, Callaway <ccallaway@students.latrobe.edu.au>, Van Stone <mvanstone@swccd.edu>
>Subject: Re: [Aztlan] 2012: End of the world?
>
>I've also been informed that my reply to this thread won't be posted to AZTLAN. The policy is to permit notifications regarding publications, talks, videos, etc. but the restriction on 2012-related discussions remains in place.
>
>"Why do Coe, Rice, Guernsey, Norman, and Malmstrom, and me (who happen to be the investigators who actually studied Izapa) believe that Izapa was very probably the locus of the Long Count's origins?"
>
>I think one would have to ask each of them: 1) whether it's so, and 2) if it's so, why? What individual investigators believe--and why--may prove to be quite varied. The "devil," of course, is in the details. I doubt very much that they're all on the same page but I'm willing to be proven wrong.
>
>John
>
>Sent from my iPod

 

 

 

 

 

From: John Major Jenkins <kahib@ix.netcom.com>

To: "Hoopes,John W" <hoopes@ku.edu>

Cc: John B Carlson <tlaloc@umd.edu>, Jorge Pérez de Lara Elías <jorgepl@estudioelias.com>, Barb MacLeod <bmacleod@austin.rr.com>, Campion <n.campion@tsd.ac.uk>, Callaway <ccallaway@students.latrobe.edu.au>, Van Stone <mvanstone@swccd.edu>

Subject: Re: [Aztlan] 2012: End of the world?

Date: Sep 2, 2011 10:31 AM

Note: none of our posts will be posted to the Aztlan list, as per the policy, so this is proceeding offlist. 
 
John Hoopes,
 
I already responded to the lack of LC dates at Izapa many times, years ago, and in my recent book The 2012 Story (2009:63-64, and chapter 4). The relevant point of entry into a conversation about this is: Why do Coe, Rice, Guernsey, Norman, and Malmstrom, and me (who happen to be the investigators who actually studied Izapa) believe that Izapa was very probably the locus of the Long Count's origins?  The situation is more complex than you might prefer it to be.
 
Having addressed that diversion, I'd like to bring the focus back to what I actually said in my email below. You may question my strategy of trying to understand the Long Count's 2012 period-ending date by studying the site and culture that many scholars believe was involved in the Long Count's formulation, but what are your thoughts on the fact that my astronomical and ideological proposals about how the ancient Maya thought about 2012 (which you can find expressed in my book Maya Cosmogenesis 2012, 1998) are being reiterated or echoed by scholars in the recent Cambridge IAU 278 publication? I honor the different routes and investigative acumen that has led them to their respective positions, but how do we address the fact that I found those same ideas too, in my study of Izapa? 
 
John Major Jenkins
The Center for 2012 Studies
http://thecenterfor2012studies.com
 
 
 
-----Original Message-----
>From: "Hoopes, John W" <hoopes@ku.edu>
>Sent: Sep 2, 2011 1:51 AM
>To: John Major Jenkins <kahib@ix.netcom.com>
>Cc: John B Carlson <tlaloc@umd.edu>, Jorge Pérez de Lara Elías <jorgepl@estudioelias.com>, Barb MacLeod <bmacleod@austin.rr.com>, Campion <ncampion@tsd.ac.uk>, Callaway <ccallaway@students.latrobe.edu.au>, Van Stone <mvanstone@swccd.edu>
>Subject: Re: [Aztlan] 2012: End of the world?
>
>The absence of Long Count dates in the many Preclassic monuments at  
>Izapa seems to me a significant impediment to interpreting Izapa as a  
>site that played any meaningful role in the origin of the Long Count.
>
>John
>
>Sent from my iPod
>
>On Sep 1, 2011, at 11:17 PM, "John Major Jenkins"  
><kahib@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>
>> I agree with Carlson that the dearth of currently known info on the  
>> 2012 date does not mean that 2012  wasn't important to the ancient  
>> Maya. I suspect that an examination of any 4 Ajaw 3 K'ank'in dates  
>> in the record might be revealing. In addition to the late-Classic  
>> data that Carlson alluded to, I'll also mention that pre-Classic  
>> information from Izapa, though not involving hieroglyphic texts, is  
>> relevant, precisely because a growing number of scholars agree that  
>> Izapa was involved in the formulation of the Long Count. Here we  
>> have my already completed studies which should be of interest,  
>> because my Izapa-based proposals regarding what the ancient Maya  
>> thought about 2012 are being echoed in the recent Cambridge papers.  
>> To be specific, we have Grofe (solar-Crossroads alignment  
>> astronomy), Callaway (Era Base Creation myth parallels to 2012),  
>> Carlson (Bolon Yokte related deity roles, sacrifice and  
>> worldrenewal) and MacLeod (TRT Mon 6, period-ending ceremony and a  
>> "great return").
>>
>> So, to summarize, we have a ceremonial ideology of period-ending  
>> deity sacrifice or ceremony, in order to facilitate worldrenewal in  
>> 2012. And we have, associated with this ideology, the idea of the  
>> rare precession-based alignment of the solstice sun with the Milky  
>> Way-ecliptic Crossroads. Astronomy and ceremony go together here,  
>> which is not at all surprising because we find this kind of  
>> parallelism in many Maya inscriptions. This is what we can summarize  
>> as being the current scholarly interpretations from those scholars  
>> who have looked proactively at the evidence for what the ancient  
>> Maya thought about 2012.
>>
>> To state the obvious, these recently published ideas from scholars  
>> echo what I’ve been reconstructing and publishing about 2012, based  
>> on my archaeoastronomical and iconographic research at Izapa and on  
>> the ballgame and the Creation Myth, since 1994. Which is basically t 
>> his: a period-ending sacrifice and renewal involving a deity, a cycl 
>> ic replication of 3114 BC, coordinated with the precession-based ali 
>> gnment of the sun with the Milky Way-ecliptic Crossroads on 13.0.0.0 
>> .0 in 2012. It seems probable that a Long Count / Creation Myth para 
>> digm was established in the pre-Classic which was expressed at Izapa 
>> , whose central tenets (ideological and astronomical) were preserved 
>>  into the Classic Period to be reflected in Tortuguero Monument 6.
>>
>> John Major Jenkins
>>
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: John B Carlson <tlaloc@umd.edu>
>>> Sent: Sep 1, 2011 9:19 PM
>>> To: Jorge Pérez de Lara Elías <jorgepl@estudioelias.com>
>>> Cc: "Aztlan@lists.famsi.org" <Aztlan@lists.famsi.org>, Barb MacLeod  
>>> <bmacleod@austin.rr.com>
>>> Subject: Re: [Aztlan] 2012: End of the world?
>>>
>>>
>>> Dear Jorge, Barb, and Listeros,
>>>
>>> I am very glad that our excellent triumvirate of AZTLAN Moderators
>>> decided to post your comments, which only further scholarship in
>>> serious studies of the "2012 phenomenon". I just have three brief
>>> things to add:
>>>
>>> 1) The actual hardback publication of IAU S278, including the
>>> proceedings of our session on 2012 studies, is now in print ahead of
>>> schedule, from Cambridge University Press. My copy arrived today.
>>>
>>> "Archaeoastronomy and Ethnoastronomy: Building Bridges between
>>> Cultures" edited by Clive L.N. Ruggles, Cambridge University Press,
>>> 2011.
>>> SUBTITLE INFORMATION: "Proceedings of the 278th Symposium of the
>>> International Astronomical Union and 'Oxford IX' International
>>> Symposium on Archaeoastronomy held in Lima, Peru, January 5-14,  
>>> 2011."
>>>
>>> 2) When I saw your original post, Jorge, before Barb's reply, I was
>>> struck by one thing in particular, and almost wrote to you privately.
>>> To say that the Maya did not think about the end of the cycle of 13
>>> Baktuns, which is also significantly 260 Katuns, because there is
>>> only one clear reference on a carved stone dynastic monument from the
>>> Classic period, might be like saying that a world of Jewish scholars
>>> might never have thought about the year 7000 in their calendar
>>> because it does not appear on their public monuments. (I think it is
>>> still currently the year 5771... I hope that's right, and I think it
>>> is calculated from the 6th day of Genesis.) For the ancient Maya,
>>> virtually everything they ever thought about and wrote about is gone,
>>> forever I imagine, and a tiny fraction of their thinking was carved
>>> on the few remaining dynastic monuments that have survived and that
>>> have been discovered. And regarding Tortuguero, I wonder how many of
>>> those monuments that survived into the 20th century have ended up
>>> either in private collections somewhere on the planet or sent into
>>> the cement factory or were ground up for road grading. (The sad case
>>> of Tortuguero was a particular archaeological tragedy.) In this case,
>>> absence of evidence is definitely not evidence of absence, and,
>>> knowing you, I am sure you agree.
>>>
>>> 3) Are there any sources that might be investigated to give us some
>>> idea about what at least some ancient (Late Classic) Maya might have
>>> anticipated for 13.0.0.0.0 in the Long Count? There are, and some of
>>> your colleagues have been thinking about this and looking into it for
>>> quite some time. I could list more than a dozen, and our friend and
>>> colleague, the late Linda Schele was among them. In fact, Barb
>>> MacLeod has been interested in these questions longer than just about
>>> anyone I know except for Michael Coe.
>>>
>>> Thanks for all of your AZTLAN posts which have helped so much over
>>> many years,
>>>
>>> John Carlson
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Aug 29, 2011, at 12:39 PM, Jorge Pérez de Lara Elías wrote:
>>>
>>>> Dear Barb (and Listeros),
>>>>
>>>> I truly believe your response to all the broohaha involving TRT
>>>> Mon. 6 being to "undertake an exacting epigraphic and linguistic
>>>> approach to the whole text of Tortuguero Monument 6" is exemplary.
>>>> This is exactly what should be done if anything worthwhile
>>>> discussing is to be arrived at (and the same is true of any other
>>>> texts, of course). And here, I must confess my position so far has
>>>> been greatly relying (perhaps excessively) in the consensus of
>>>> epigraphers I have long known and trusted. (I am no fan of Ronald
>>>> Reagan's but his "trust but verify" sounds like especially good
>>>> advice, indeed.)
>>>>
>>>> I have only learned recently about your (and Sven's and Mark's)
>>>> work on the monument and I think the fact that you (who have
>>>> impeccable credentials as epigraphers) have found elements in the
>>>> inscription that offer "sufficient reliability to move forward into
>>>> syntax and semantics" is certainly very exciting news. I think the
>>>> critical element in claiming a better (or deeper) understanding of
>>>> the text is to be able to read it properly. I must say that so many
>>>> claims of "a better or deeper" understanding of the text made by
>>>> non-epigraphers have in the past awoken my suspicion more than my
>>>> interest.
>>>>
>>>> I very much look forward to reading your work.
>>>>
>>>> Jorge
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Aug 24, 2011, at 2:58 PM, Barb MacLeod wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> We are in agreement about the importance of efforts to dispel the
>>>>> burgeoning nonsense, and we all have our roles in attempting to
>>>>> defuse it. Mine has been to undertake an exacting epigraphic and
>>>>> linguistic approach to the whole text of Tortuguero Monument 6--
>>>>> and not just to its excursion into 2012.  I have made several
>>>>> attempts to share this material publicly via local lectures to
>>>>> groups of the millenarian persuasion, but find that most are not
>>>>> especially receptive, even though they are friendly and
>>>>> transiently interested. Nobody wants to come back for a paradigm
>>>>> shift.
>>>>>
>>>>> For any who follow up on John's suggestion to look at the
>>>>> Cambridge University Press volume online, I hope you'll agree that
>>>>> our session in Lima earlier this year entailed some interesting,
>>>>> even provocative, scholarly effort. My short paper was constrained
>>>>> by time and publication constraints. Volume 24 of
>>>>> "Archaeoastronomy" is currently being edited by John Carlson and
>>>>> will be published early in 2012 by UT Press; it will contain much
>>>>> longer versions of our presentations plus a few additional papers.
>>>>>
>>>>> Jorge, you say that the closing passage of TRT 6, as it is now
>>>>> understood, does not grant any conclusions, but rather only
>>>>> speculation. My feeling is that the belief that the text contains
>>>>> nothing of importance is itself speculation, with no more protein
>>>>> in it (I think less) than the scholarly alternative.  There are
>>>>> epigraphers who have collaborated with me on this text who
>>>>> consider that the signs deemed "unreadable" by some CAN be read
>>>>> (with sufficient reliability to move forward into syntax and
>>>>> semantics) employing the best possible resource--the mosaic photo
>>>>> of the passage by Paul Johnson and Mark Van Stone (seen on the
>>>>> cover of Mark's new book on 2012). There are also points of
>>>>> discourse analysis (as I have recently addressed with Nick
>>>>> Hopkins) which add substance to the position that there is
>>>>> actually 2012-based substance in the text. It requires unbiased
>>>>> attention.
>>>>>
>>>>> What Sven and I said in 2012 in Wayeb Notes 34 < http://
>>>>> www.wayeb.org/notes/wayeb_notes0034.pdf  >  has been modified a
>>>>> bit; the i-li collocation (quite visible in the Johnson/Van Stone
>>>>> photo but not in Stuart's drawing in The Order of Days) is now
>>>>> best understood as the Ch'ol demonstrative 'this', with the whole
>>>>> passage reading 'will happen THIS display of Bolon Yookte' in the
>>>>> great return (or investiture). The methodology we use is that
>>>>> which epigraphers agree is productive in making sense of  damaged
>>>>> texts.
>>>>>
>>>>> In sum, I see this monument as having become politicized along a
>>>>> boundary between millenarians and scholars to the tune of "YES, it
>>>>> says Bolon Yookte' will descend and the ninth galactic wave will
>>>>> wash down upon us" vs. "NO, it says nothing about 2012; it's just
>>>>> a quick dash out to the next big 4 Ajaw and right back to
>>>>> contemporaneous events, and what we haven't translated can't be
>>>>> read".
>>>>>
>>>>> We can do better, if only to honor this Tortuguero king and the
>>>>> elegant literarary achievement that this entire monument  
>>>>> represents.
>>>>>
>>>>> Barb MacLeod
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> *************Original Message**************
>>>>> From: Jorge Pérez de Lara Elías <jorgepl@estudioelias.com>
>>>>> To: Aztlan <aztlan@lists.famsi.org>
>>>>> Subject: [Aztlan] 2012: End of the world?
>>>>> Message-ID: <051BC7E5-B986-447F-830B-D7C7B28945F8@estudioelias.com>
>>>>> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
>>>>>
>>>>> My personal opinion is that framing the topic of 2012 in terms of
>>>>> refuting the "End of the World" on the part of scholars is driven
>>>>> by the need to dispel all the senseless broohaha that has been
>>>>> built upon this whole non-issue. Most of what I read on this topic
>>>>> by scholars has to do with a desire to educate the general public.
>>>>> At times, it can be tiresome (because of the frequency with which
>>>>> the topic is cropping up) but the intention seems to be to try and
>>>>> use the public attention the nonsense has generated to call
>>>>> attention to a genuinely fascinating field.
>>>>>
>>>>> Having said that, I differ with John in seeing any need for
>>>>> "treating the 2012 topic with the seriousness that it deserves",
>>>>> because I truly believe that the evidence found so far argues for
>>>>> exactly the opposite: that the Maya did not think much about 2012
>>>>> at all. Consider this: there is only one, quite brief mention of
>>>>> the date on a single monument carved by the virtually unknown king
>>>>> of a site of pretty secondary importance. Furthermore the text, as
>>>>> is now understood, does not grant ANY conclusions, but rather only
>>>>> speculation.
>>>>>
>>>>> If we were to adhere strictly to the scientific evidence that can
>>>>> be gleaned from that single monument, acknowledging that any
>>>>> speculation around it is just that, we are left with the one thing
>>>>> that the majority of scholars has been opting for: taking the
>>>>> chance to debunk the 2012 nonsense and using the opportunity to
>>>>> try and build genuine interest in a culture that is without
>>>>> question worth understanding more.
>>>>>
>>>>> My 2 cents.
>>>>>
>>>>> Jorge