Earlier this week INAH announced that excavations at the Casa Colorada (Red House) complex at Chichen Itza have unearthed a new hieroglyphic inscription that refers to the year AD 869, the likely date of dedication of the complex. The inscriptions sits within the building itself and contains references to rulers of Chichen Itza and Ek Balam. This earlier construction integrated four buildings on a platform where a 2.3 m high stela with inscriptions was found which probably once stood in the center of the platform.  This is a significant find since the only stelae found at Chichen Itza have been fragmented. It is believed that once that the inscriptions on the stela have been deciphered and the ceramics have been analyzed that the building may be dated back to somewhere in-between AD 800 and 850.

Casa Colorada

The Cochuah region has not been a peaceful area. At Yo’okop we have evidence of several fortifications that may even date to separate events (such as the Terminal Classic abandonment and the later Postclassic reoccupation and abandonment of the site). However, the most commonly found traces of fortifications are much later. The Cochuah region was the centre of the Caste War and its aftermath (1847-1901). In 1847 Maya groups rebelled against the Creoles (Mexicans or Yucatecans of Spanish descent). The early successful campaigns by the mazehual (“Maya”) in 1847-1848 almost drove the Creoles out from the peninsula. However, these campaigns ultimately led to a series of setbacks and approximately 40 percent of the population of Yucatan died between 1846 and 1850.

Close to Yo’okop lies Fortin Yo’okop which has a four-bastion design. I’ll discuss it in another post. This is the only true fortification in the area since it appears to have been constructed for this single purpose. The fort lies at the very boundary between what was Spanish/Mexican controlled areas and “wilderness.”

Caste War fortification at Ichmul

Smaller Caste War trincheras (not trenches, but low fortification walls) are found near Colonial/Early independence settlements in the region. The most impressive ones, apart from Fortin Yo’okop, are to be found at Ichmul which was one of the first cities under attack. The town was attacked on Christmas day in 1847. The town resisted 20 days of rebel attacks. In 2004, we mapped the western part of the Central Acropolis.  This portion of the acropolis contains several trincheras. The walls were either built during the 1847 attack or from when the federal militia recovered Ichmul in 1848. The Caste War largely depopulated the town. Ichmul was resettled again around 1900.

 

 

Central Acropolis at Ichmul

 

I have now read the first review of the 2012 movie and it is being treated as expected:

“We haven’t laughed so hard in a long time. The latest global disaster movie from director Roland Emmerich (Independence Day, The Day After Tomorrow) throws so much stupidity at you in such rapid succession that it’s practically a torrential cliché-maelstrom; the kind of bloated, silly cinematic disaster that is so unintentionally hilarious that actually flips over and becomes a redeeming factor.”

I have laughed at Emmerich’s earlier spectacles (particularly The Day After Tomorrow and 10,000 BC), but this movie hopefully receives several several Golden Raspberry awards. Somebody should force him to stop making horribly bad movies. Unfortunately, I’ll have to see it because he includes a tiny portion of Maya in it. However, if the review is accurate (and I believe it is from my point of view), I think the movie actually is a positive thing. It will just show how silly the whole 2012circus is. It is from this perspective that I say: thank you Emmerich for this disservice to the 2012circus.

One of the recurrent themes in the 2012 circus is conspiracy theory. The most popular conspiracy theory today is the one related to the 9/11 event (and in my post on numerology you can see that number 11 is important for these hoaxers). The 9/11 conspiracy basically says that it was the US government (including G W Bush) who was responsible for the attack on WTC and Pentagon. This has become an increasingly popular belief even in Sweden. I can just imagine what people will make up of 2012 when it becomes more familiar.

In some upcoming posts I will expose the ideas of these following conspiracy theorists who twist and bend the past in order to fit their own bizarre theories: David Wilcock (who claims the government hides the truth about our own alien connections out in the open) and Michael Tsarion who proposes quite similar ideas. I’ll probably include Lloyd Pye who argues scientists are brainwashing us in believing we descend from hominids when we actually are partially alien… I just need time to get through their piles of twisted arguments. It will not be an intellectual exercise.

And now something completely different. You probably won’t believe this but my house and street is currently being blocked off by the police. A man with a possible bomb belt entered tram # 6 in Göteborg. At least six police cars and an ambulance stopped at the junction between my street (Olivedalsgatan) and the street (Linnégatan) where the tram runs. According to gp.se the man has been captured but still they have expanded the area that is being blocked off, so right now I am within the blocked off area. My wife and I are not allowed to watch the events from our balcony.

I am sure the 2012ers will see this as evidence that the mysterious elders or illuminati are mad with my debunking of the prophets of nonsense.

Update: Here is the article of the incident in Göteborgsposten. It was apparently a bomb but it could not detonate. The man is 61 years old and has a history of mental problems.

Not long after CNN posted the El Mirador videos on internet the site was caught up in the 2012circus. Just the fact that it appears to have been completely unheard of before this is just revealing how ignorant the 2012ers are. The site has been known and investigated for decades. Mel Gibson contacted Richard Hansen to consult him for Apocalypto after watching a documentary of his work in the Mirador basin. I think this was broadcasted by Discovery Channel. Thus, the site should have been known to any 2012er with an interest in the actual archaeological record. Since few of them have such an interest, but rather believe anything prophets of nonsense interpret as alien intervention is more accurate, this site remained unknown to them. But now that it is known it has already become infested by the 2012virus.

This also shows the ethnocentrism of the 2012circus. I will use this recent “takeover” of Mirador as an example. On 2012forum.com one of the moderators (“suz”) says that “these were not primitive people and the findings here rewrite the Mayan history.” Later on “Vision-master” wonders “they built these all by hand? Why do we keep looking back at ancient civilizations as primitive?” Suz replies and says “I don’t, and I think this line of thinking is slowly changing by the mainstream.” This may sound fairly innocent. It may be seen as a positive evaluation of past people as more “advanced” than the mainstream opinion may be. This is not so. Through the labeling of people as advanced or primitive the mindset of many 2012ers is revealed. This is based on ethnocentric colonialism of the 19th century (and most of their ideas of cultural diffusion dates back to the 19^th century as well). The interesting thing is that 2012ers attempt to attribute these evaluations to archaeologists and others when it is quite obvious that it is the 2012ers who have them.

No clearer is this when “Thirdeye” says “No suprise to me since the anunaki helped the mayas build their empire.” Suz replies and says “That may very well be close to the truth. Somebody intelligent built them and obviously it wasn’t the kind that Mel Gibson portrayed in his film. There was a technology that was capable of creating these buildings that were meant to last. Also there are massive underground cities in Tikal and other parts of the world such as Egypt under the pyramids far too elaborate for the times.” Apart from ignorant statements of supposedly underground cities at Tikal (tunnels excavated by archaeologists or caves maybe?) and a Mayan empire, these people cannot possibly think that the Maya could build these buildings by themselves. The Annunaki helped them…

The Annunaki are Mesopotamian deities. However, the pseudoscientist Sitchin claims these are humanlike aliens from the planet Nibiru (who will return in 2012…). The Annunaki apparently genetically engineered modern humans by mixing Annunaki genes with those of Homo erectus 450,000 years ago. Humans were designed to become slaves. Civilization was created under the guidance of these Annunaki.

The 2012ers therefore argue that the ancient Maya (or any other “civilization”) were incapable of coming up with these buildings, writing, etc. all by themselves. They needed guidance. This sounds much like the “white man’s burden”, where non-western people were seen as child like. Thus, it was, in the European colonialists view, their obligation to rule over and develop people’s culture so that they could adopt a western way of life. Although many 2012ers are against the current way of living and see 2012 as a change of the current situation, they argue that to be primitive is to have a simple technology and the lack of intelligence to build pyramids (Suz says “somebody intelligent built them”). It is also revealing that Vision-Master doubts that pyramids like this could be built by hand. As clearly shown in the movies the stones were not large like in Egypt and there is an example of a handprint on a piece of mud stuck in-between the rocks. It was quite basic building technology.

But if you write something like that you will be accused of seeing them as primitive. The 2012ers people mix skill and technology. They fall prey for the simple linear view of technological development as well. In such a view, technology should become more complex as time proceeds. “Primitive” people like Inuits should in such a view have simpler technology than farming communities like El Mirador. Not true. Inuit hunting spears are more complex than a planting stick. Also, it takes plenty more skill to hunt seals with spears than to pile rocks into a pyramid.

Now, the 2012ers would not see Mirador as a farming community, but the remains of something far more advanced. Thirdeye says this about the Annunaki: “technology wise they will always be far greater. I wouldnt be at all suprise if they could destroy our planet if they wanted too. Look at the technology they had in egyptian times……If they didnt fear the anunaki then they would be more open and truthfull about our real history but we are continuosly fed with lies. FACT” Thus, whatever the 2012 debunkers say it will always be lies. This is like arguing with a religious fundamentalist….and btw, the creationists are already in this circus. They are the most ethnocentric and even racist regarding the Maya.

Finally “Aquarian Trumpet” says that “the Egyptians did not create the Giza pyramids – they were only the ‘new found’ caretakers  Well – it is my contention that the Mayan’s have also been bestowed with the same honor! Now before you go away – hear me out..;…not all of the Mayan temples were bestowed upon them -just a few – the others are rebuilt remnants and unfinished construction. I believe Chicken Itza is also a sky map, maybe in conjuction with the Giza sky map!!! Also – the new found glyph at el Mirador…it’s not what they think it is – they are reading it wrong…it’s a warning”

Thus, some Maya rebuilt remnants and did not finish their buildings. They were primarily caretakers of buildings already constructed by aliens. You must have complete lack of knowledge of archaeology to claim such ethnocentric nonsense. But this is in line with the last sentence. A new found glyph (I guess he/she refers to the “Popol Vuh” frieze…), is argued to be read in the wrong way. I am sure he or someone else not well attuned with Maya iconography and epigraphy will give us a proper interpretation any time soon. It would not be a surprise if the Annunaki are found in Mirador’s monumental art as well. I end this post with a song by the German metal band Running Wild that summarizes Sitchin’s nonsense ideas of the Annunaki:

Before my fieldwork in the Cochuah region I spent four seasons in the Belize Valley. I first spent one season (1997) at Baking Pot. During a weekend I took a taxi to El Pilar, the largest site in the Upper Belize Valley. I liked the site and I later contacted Anabel Ford who was/is the director of the BRASS (Belize River Archaeological Settlement Survey) project. I returned to El Pilar in 1998, 2000 and 2001. It was actually my work at this site that set me on the path toward studying causeways. In 2000 and 2001 I directed the survey and mapping of household mounds surrounding the monumental architecture which had already been mapped. I will present El Pilar in several posts. This first one deals with a description of the major buildings in the southern part of the monumental core. I will use my old reconstruction drawings as illustration, I am too lazy to scan my old slides.

El Pilar seen from northwest

El Pilar was noted by the Department of Archaeology in Belize in the 1970s by Joseph Palacio and Harriot Topsey (Ford et al 1995). A preliminary map of the eastern monumenal group was developed in 1984. However, the surrounding areas of the El Pilar Archaeological Reserve for Maya Flora and Fauna have only partially been surveyed and mapped. During the 2000 field season a long-term settlement survey project was initiated which continued in 2001.

Several smaller satellite sites surrounds El Pilar. Laton lies 4,5 km from El Pilar and is thus far the only known major obsidian production site in the Lowlands. Thirty-nine exhausted prismatic cores and over 30,000 pieces of obsidian debris were found at this site. The obsidian came from El Chayal and Ixtepeque. Other minor centers such as Alta Vista, Yaxox, and Bacab Na lay closer to the valley (Ford et al 1995).

El Pilar lies in a hilly area, roughly 235 m above sea level. It consist of four monumental groups of architecture. Two of these lies in modern Belize (Nohol Pilar and Xaman Pilar) and the other two (Chikin Pilar and Kum) lies in modern Guatemala. The core of the Belizean monumental groups of El Pilar measures roughly 600 x 200 m. The southernmost group is called Nohol Pilar and it is the focus of this post.

Plaza Axcanan

Plaza Axcanan lies at the southern end of Nohol Pilar and consists of three range-structures and two pyramidal mounds, to the east and to the south. Terminal Classic construction in this area involved stone robbing from older structures which suggests that the plaza was enclosed quite late (Ford et al 1995). Four meters below the entrance to EP3 which flanks the north end of Axcanan lies the site’s largest plaza, Plaza Copal. It had a wide accessway from the large Bryan & Murphy causeway in the west (more on this in a later post) and a stairway from the lower lying Plaza Duende in the north. A small ballcourt with Late Formative traces, straddles the eastern edge of the plaza, squeezed in between the major structures EP3 to the southwest and EP7 to the north.

EP7, on the eastern side stands on a basal platform with side wings to the north and south. This 80 m long and 17 m high building have been penetrated by a 44 m long tunnel which shows a long construction phase spanning from the Middle Formative to the Late Classic. The earliest structures consisted of a platform constructed of clay from an aguada which lies to the east. Thus it seems likely that the aguada was enlarged relatively early in the site’s history. These earliest structures face east whereas the Late Classic structure face west, toward the plaza. This Middle Formative clay platform probably faced an open plaza to the east. At this time the plaza sloped in south-east direction, toward the aguada. Later there was a shift in the slope to the northwest which may have occurred at a time when the south platform and the central temple were connected and thus restricted the flow of water to the aguada. It is believed that when the orientation of EP7 changed, Plaza Copal was extended to the west. Large stones inside the temple, forming a header-and-stretcher style retaining wall have been dated to the Late Formative (Wernecke 1998, 2000) Two large rectangular shaped stones, probably stelae, have been found at the base of EP7 and in Plaza Duende near the base of the Duende- Copal stairs. The stela found at EP7 seems to have fallen from a higher location (Wernecke 1994).

EP10 in the west is 80 m long, 30 m wide and has a 14 m wide stairway which leads to a wide range structure on top. EP10 is approximately 12 m high. It appears to be a five-stepped terraced pyramid. The corners facing the plaza were rounded as seems to be the case for several larger structures at the site (Ford et al 1995). South of EP10 lies a pile of construction debris which may have been intended for the re-building of EP7 which was under its way (Wernecke 1994). EP7 and EP10 form a so-called E-Group (named after Group E at Uaxactun where this arrangement first was discovered). These are bilaterally symmetrical temples on east and west sides of a plaza that faces each others.

Two smaller temples straddles the northern side of Plaza Copal. EP8 in north-east and EP9 in the north-west. The lowest floor of EP9 contained a Middle Formative round platform. It was five meters in diamater and 25-35 cm high. These kind of structures have been found at Barton Ramie, Rio Azul, and Cahal Pech (Aimers et al. 2000). There are no signs of a superstructure and they may have worked as dance platforms or oratories, related to ancestor worship. This structure was later covered by an open plaza. The replacement of round structures with rectilinear ones in later periods may indicate a shift in form but a maintained content, that is, lineage or burial shrines.

Plaza Duende is a large open area with only one major structure in the northwest corner. It was reached from Plaza Copal in the south by a wide stairway. As people moved to the north from Duende they had to walk down a ramp on the eastern side of the plaza and into a low lying plaza labeled Escoba. North of this area we find Plaza Faisan which unites Nohol Pilar with Xaman Pilar in the north. I save that for another blog post.

Since I moved my blog to WordPress seven months ago I have created 180 posts and had over 100,000 hits. I believe it now is the largest “Mayanist blog” in terms of the number of hits. The overall statistics from the start is 503 visitors a day (this ranges from 9 to 2197). People from 144 countries have checked out the blog. An overwhelming majority of my visitors are from the US (52.9%). These are followed by Sweden (8.7%), UK (6.6%), Canada (4.2%), India (3%), Pakistan (2.6%), Australia (2.2%), Singapore (1.4%), Netherlands (1.3%), and Germany (1%). Only on the 11^th position do we find a “Mesoamerican” country: Mexico (0.9%). Pakistan and Singapore are a bit of a surprise here.

The dominance of the US is not a surprise considering which posts attract most visitors. The top posts are all 2012 related and it is also in the US where we find most of the 2012circus. My review of Patrick Geryl’s prophecies of nonsense is the most popular followed by the one on the Aztec calendar stone and on the third place we find Calleman’s personal cosmology. On the fourth place we find the top non-2012 post (the recent El Mirador is a brand!).

The low frequency of visitors from Mexico and even less from Guatemala, Belize, Honduras and El Salvador is due to the fact that these visitors seldom visit the 2012 pages but are more interested in my serious research. Apart from Belize, English is not widely spoken in these countries (and especially my Swenglish version of it).

In conclusion: in a way I am also “living” on the 2012 circus. To be a debunker of nonsense can be a successful strategy.

In two earlier posts I have mentioned my unpublished novel The Heart of Time (which have to be reworked before I ever send it to a publisher). Today I got an email from the author (David L. Smith) of a newly published novel called Jaguar Rising. Here is the teaser of the book (Amazon.com):

“K’akich Balam, “Fire-Eyes Jaguar,” is caught in a tug-of-war. Raised the son of a long distance merchant who is away from home for long periods, he expects to follow the path of his uncles in the building arts. On the doorstep to manhood, K’akich Balam discovers that he has inherited royal blood. And the prophecy given at his birth requires him to prepare for a life of privilege — possibly to rule. Although they are at odds with one another, his overbearing father, Thunder-Flute Rabbit, and his spiritual teacher, White Grandfather, guide him toward the throne. They say a man cannot resist what is in his blood; neither can he refuse to walk the path the ancestors laid out for him. Encounters with men and women at every level of society combine with altered-state experiences, initiation rites, battles, shamanic rituals and painting commissions to carry K’akich to the inevitable like a canoe on a fast-moving stream. or can he follow his heart? Can he choose both? Can he choose at all? B.C. “

Does he have a choice? Must he choose the path of his blood or can he follow his heart? Can he choose both? Can he choose at all?

The story is set in jungles of Belize and Guatemala around 35 B.C.”

Compare this with the teaser of my novel and there are obvious similarities. The main character is a person with royal connections, there are prophecies, spiritual teachers, altered state-experiences, etc. My novel and his are almost 700 years apart. It seems that Jaguar Rising mainly is based on Classic, Postclassic and early Colonial sources which then are projected backwards to the Late Formative period of which we know considerably less. I do not know if this is a good book or not. I will probably never have time to read it but if someone does read it, let me know what you think. I enjoy historical fiction like this but I just do not seem to get the time to read them anymore. Anyway, I guess there is a limited amount of topics that would interest a possible reader (at least that is the assumption). Hence, all the “Maya novels” that I have seen are similar. My novel, however, takes an artifact’s perspective and I should probably emphasize that thread of the novel.

Back in 1997 I finally finished my overworked BA-thesis in archaeology. It discussed Late Formative trade and its importance in the rise of stratified social formations in the Central Maya Lowlands. I particularly focused on the political relations between Cerros in northern Belize and El Mirador in northern Guatemala. My theoretical framework was Bourdieu’s theory of practice. Central in this thesis were “commodities.” 

Late Formative temple mask at Cerros

For Appadurai, “commodities are things with a particular type of social potential…they are distinguishable from “products”, “objects”, “goods”, “artefacts” and other sorts of things – but only in certain respects and from a certain point of view” (Appadurai 1986:6). Kopytoff defines a commodity as a thing with a value that can be exchanged for a counterpart which in the immediate context has an equivalent value. The counterpart is also a commodity at the exchange (Kopytoff 1986:68).

Commodities are often evidence of contacts from outside the local area and they have “life histories” and it might be important to see how the distribution of knowledge affects them at various points. For example, knowledge of producing primary commodities, such as basic food, is more standardized than the knowledge of producing luxuries (Appadurai 1986:41-42).

Individuals at different stages (producers, traders or consumers) create their own mythologies and practices related to the commodities. All commodities are most uniform at production.  When commodities come a long distance from its production (either institutional, spatial or temporal), knowledge becomes partial, contradictory and differentiated, something that lead to demand (Appadurai 1986:48-56).

Commodities are also items of economic value which exists only in the subjects’ mind, not in the commodities themselves. Value is both embodied in commodities and created by economic exchange (Appadurai 1986:3). For Marx, a commodity’s value was determined by the social relations of its production. The exchange system alienates the user from the production and thus endows it with fetish like power different from the items true value. Kopytoff on the other hand, argues that power attributed to a commodity after production is the result of singularization (see below) which is the opposite of commoditization (Kopytoff 1986:83).

There are only a few items in a social formation which becomes commodities. An item may in some context be regarded as a commodity but in another context as a non-commodity. An item can be seen as a commodity by one person but not for another person (Kopytoff 1986:64). Commoditization make items exchangeable for other items, and the opposite, it makes even more items more widely exchangeable.                       

Some part of the environment is usually set apart as sacred, it resists the commoditization of others. These objects have been singularized. Rulers often insist on their right to singularize objects (Kopytoff 1986:73). Singularization may lose its importance when other members of a social formation replicate the singularized objects and the objects lose their value through emulation. It has been argued that after a while, new status goods and symbols must have been made to replace the former ones as they lost the meaning the elite ascribed them (Hodder 1982:207-208). Exclusive status symbols were inalienable possessions which functioned as repositories of genealogies and events. Their unique and subjective identity made them singularized (Weiner 1992:33). Singularization could be extended to architecture as well, such as at Cerros above (LeCount 1999:240). The presence of specialized craftsmen is one indication of rulers’ need for singularized objects (Inomata 2000). The context of osteological remains may indicate how the Maya viewed the animals they utilized. Some animals may have been taboo or sacred due to singularization. Specific animals like the stingray, quetzal and jaguar were most likely sacred and only available for the elite.

After my BA and MA theses in archaeology (1996-1999), which had a strong materialist approach, I entered a period of idealist (cosmological) approaches as seen in my BA thesis in social anthropology (1999-2003). This also affected my early dissertation work, which can be seen in my Licentiate thesis from 2004. After this I entered my current neo-materialist phase and now I can see my earlier materialist approaches in a new light. I’ll have to rewrite a new article on the processes of commoditization and singularization. At least I have made a blog post.

The easiest way to detect a 2012 prophet’s logical fallacy is to look for false dilemmas and straw men in their arguments. A false dilemma is when one characterizes the opposite position (that would be science or the “orthodox” view as they often call it) in terms of two alternatives. Only two options are considered when there tend to be several other options. The first is quite undesirable and the second is even worse. This is quite often a black or white scenario since the two options tend to be extreme versions. For example, on the Swedish 2012 forum a member wrote in response to my link to the satire on creationism vs science (dressed up as ancient alien theory vs common archaeology), that he or she preferred aliens instead of creationism (sadistic Christian god) or the cold and dead Darwinism (modern science). This is a typical (but of course not the only) position within the 2012 circus. Hence creationism and science (two opposite views) are both wrong so the alien theory is preferable.

The straw man argument is when you misrepresent the opponent’s position. When you attack the straw man you create an illusion of refuting a proposition by replacing a superficially similar proposition (this is the straw man) without actually refuting the original position. This is quite a common strategy as well (not only in the 2012 circus since we all tend to fall into this trap). I have been accused of that myself by peer-reviewers that disliked my characterization of Mayanist research (or rather the Maya culture concept) as being too generalizing. Some of the reviewers have actually argued against my straw man with another straw man: that I denigrate the human. I guess the main problem is that I call myself posthumanist or posthumanocentric (as I call my own approach). This is apparently conflated with being antihuman… I do no such thing and if you bother reading this blog you will find out that there are quite a lot of human becomings (not beings) in my approach.

In any case, this shows that we often attack the opposite side by creating a straw man version of their arguments. In the 2012 circus we often find misrepresentation of archaeology, science, “Western way of life”, etc. “Mainstream” archaeology is seen as orthodox when it does not accept the pseudoscientific “fact” that there are even more ancient civilizations (such as Atlantis) that handed down their knowledge. Never mind that such diffusionist ideas actually once existed in mainstream archaeology (maybe not as Atlantis but at least as the idea that civilization spread from one place to another). So when 2012ers refute “orthodox” archaeology they are refuting a sterile stereotypical view that they have created for themselves, hence they will never be able to refute archaeology, particularly since they also tend to lack any archaeological training and education.  Anyway, I am sure my 2012 opponents will say that my characterizations of them are straw men.

My research on caves and climate change is soon entering the second half (time wise at least). Where am I going after this? I am taking what may appear to be a radical turn. Instead of focusing on global and regional climate change and macroscale settlement patterns related to the Chicxulub fracture zone, I am planning to look at political affect from a neuroarchaeological perspective. The scale of research is therefore neurons, senses, and how these affect and are being affected by other assemblages. As strange as it may appear, this is actually related to my current research since I make use of an ontology of flow and complexity that works on many scales.

I will make use of a non-representational view of cognition that also see the mind and body as extended. Living bodies do not negotiate their worlds by representing them to themselves, but rather by feeling what can be and cannot be done in a particular situation. Spinoza defines affect as the body’s capability to act and to be acted upon. It has two registers (being affected by an encounter and the change in power of the body). An encounter can enhance the power of one body, it can decrease both bodies, or it can increase both. Once you move into an assemblage you are depersonalized or deterritorialized and new habits form. As John Protevi says: “Affect is the feeling for this variation; it is de-personalizing intensity as opening up access to the virtual, to the differential field, Idea, or multiplicity of the situation… It is the feeling of change in relation to bodies entering a new assemblage…and the feeling of how the present feeling might vary in relation to what might happen next in a variety of futures” (Protevi 2008:16).

I will make use of various assemblages on various scales. The Face in Maya iconography will be my point of departure and I will work myself upwards and downwards in scale. Hence I intend not to see the face as the face of a fixed represented subject. It will rather be the flow of subjectivity affecting its surroundings. These faces are neither seen as representations but rather as constituent parts of assemblages that creates various regimes of signs.

I will see the workshop on the “archaeology of the senses” at Stockholm University as the first step. But, as Ingold shows with the “anthropology of the senses”, this is still a field too caught up in the Cartesian dualism between mind and matter. Deleuze, Bergson, and Spinoza will be my main sources of inspiration to deterritorialize this view.

Cornelius Holtorf has written a book called Archaeology is a Brand! To him, archaeology is usually presented as something positive in media. The archaeologist is seen as an adventurer, a detective, a discoverer of incredible things, and the caretaker of old remains and artifacts. Holtorf argues that archaeologists should use these positive associations that archaeology has. Indiana Jones is not bad and we should utilize him and other popularized views of archaeology when we present archaeology. In this sense archaeology is a brand.

Mayanists are often working along these lines. No one does this better than Richard Hansen (who was Me Gibson’s consultant for Apocalypto). Hansen is definitely an adventurer, detective, discoverer of spectacular things and the caretaker of archaeological remains. At least this is how he is represented in this video from CNN. Here Hansen promotes El Mirador as a brand. The mysterious and massive Late Formative/Preclassic Maya ruins hidden in the jungle is a dominant topic. We are shown a sequence of the Danta pyramid buried in jungle and a text shows up telling us “This is not a mountain” (depends on how you define it since according to the Maya cosmology “pyramids” are mountains). Later another text says that El Mirador is “Larger than downtown Los Angeles”. This gives an impression that the site had as large population density as downtown LA. This is not quite true and I do not know if they mean larger in terms of area or in terms of population or population density.

The journalist promotes the idea that Mirador lies deep in the jungle. She says that the helicopter that brought them there is getting smaller and smaller, leaving her stuck in a vast jungle and does did not know what she will see. This is a typical mystifying of an exotic adventure. Hansen let her know that Mirador is a saga of humanity that was not known before (Mirador is hereby transformed into a heritage of mankind). Mirador or the Mirador basin is promoted as the “cradle” of Maya civilization. That depends on how you define it. There are sites with older occupation elsewhere, such as in Belize, but they are much smaller. Nearby Nakbe (where Hansen has worked before) is also a massive site but as far as I know it is older (but older structures may be found below the later Mirador pyramids). Another similar comment in this context is delivered when they reach the top of the Danta pyramid: they are now on top of the Maya world.

We are told that the Danta pyramid may be the largest pyramid/ancient structure in the world. In the helicopter Hansen first says that Mirador’s pyramids are the largest in volume, then he hesitates for a moment and says that they are ranked among the largest in the world. The reporter makes a comparison with the pyramids of Egypt (Khufu’s pyramid I assume). Danta may be 2.8 million cubic m large whereas Khufu’s “only” is 2.6. Now, this is believed to be the case if the builders at Mirador actually built the bottom platform as well. This may be part of a hill. In any case, this is not the largest “pyramid”. This is still the one at Cholula (4.4 million cubic m).

 

El Tigre

However, I am highly skeptical to the calculated volume of the Danta pyramid (and the Cholula pyramid as well). I do not have the exact dimensions of the Danta structure, but if we take the nearby El Tigre pyramid (as shown in another video clip) at the same site as an example (which has slightly smaller basal dimensions), its dimensions are 150 x 145 x 53 m. Now, these two pyramids have a very massive substructure but these only reach halfway up the height. The top three structures have much smaller volumes. Let’s say, for the argument’s sake, that the El Tigre pyramid formed a cube, we would get the volume of 1.1 million cubic m. I would suspect that the Tigre real volume probably is 0.6-0.7 million cubic m. The Danta pyramid cannot have been much larger, certainly not four times larger which is needed to surpass the Khufu pyramid. Even here, the pyramids at Izamal may be as large as the Mirador structures. However, the largest structures in the Maya area are not “pyramids” but causeways and the Coba-Yaxuna causeway has an estimated volume of 0.75 million cubic m. Anyhow, Mirador also had massive causeways connecting the site with many other sites.

 

However, this exercise in volume calculating is pointless apart from the fact that it indicates a tremendous labour investment. Comparing it with other “pyramids” in the world only fuels the idea that Mesoamerican pyramids are like the Egyptian ones (and all that may imply). The journalist Brooke Baldwin mentions that the archaeologist still tries to find out if the supporting platform is a platform or a hill. One gets the impression that the only thing archaeologists are interested in is how big their structures were. This reminds me of a 4^th of July party tour I took a couple of years ago when all information we got from the tour were the dimensions of buildings.

El Mirador is not a “new” site. It was discovered in 1926 but it lies in a remote location. However, it has been a tourist destination for quite some time (hiking tours for a couple of days). It is not as isolated anymore as the journalist is saying. The whole Mirador basin will become a tourist destination in the next decade. The basin contains several huge sites (El Mirador, Nakbe, Tintal, Wakna, etc.) and it is one of the most interesting archaeological areas in the world. Hansen is automatically the protector of these ancient sites that are threatened by loggers, looters, drug smugglers and cattle rangers. Indeed, El Mirador is brand (although slightly exaggerated) that is in need of protection.

Updates: since I wrote the post I realized that there were three more video clips. I really found the handprint inside one of the Tigre structures to be most fascinating. I have mentioned the Popol Vuh frieze in an earlier post. Not included in these videos are the exciting finds of a possible battle on top of the Tigre pyramid when Teotihuacanos attacked the site. I have other related posts on El Mirador as well. Hansen is doing a remarkable job and it is easy to create this kind of brand when you are working with the most spectacular of Maya ruins. I am sure posthumanocentric archaeology will never become a brand.

Now, this is fun. It is a satire on creationism but unfortunately this is pretty much how the UFO – 2012hoaxers argue. In a “debate” I had with a hoaxer the flying spaghetti monster was actually brought up…

I found this on Pharyngula.

As mentioned in an earlier post, the Mayanist Stephen Houston will give a lecture and be the discussant in a workshop held at Stockholm University. Here is more information (only in Swedish):

http://www.archaeology.su.se/pub/jsp/polopoly.jsp?d=1810&a=69388

http://www.archaeology.su.se/pub/jsp/polopoly.jsp?d=13494