This post will be the last one on the 2012 circus for this year. In “honour” of today’s date, it is time to present the evidence that the Maya never believed that the Long Count (LC) would end and begin anew at 13.0.0.0.0 (December 21 [or 23], 2012). Many 2012ers (and plenty of Mayanists as well) falsely believe that the LC cycle spans 13 baktuns (roughly 5125 years) and that a new one will follow this one.

Some 2012ers (read Jenkins and his followers) further believe that there are five LC cycles that together form a longer cycle that is related to the precession of the equinoxes (a Platonic year of roughly 25,920 years). According to Jenkins this is also related to a Galactic alignment when the ecliptic crosses the galactic equator. However, as Mark Van Stone shows, this alignment actually occurs every year but due to the precession this event occurs on different days. As regards the 21 December date, the sun touched the galactic equator already in 1983 and will do so until 2019. Hence the 2012 date as the chosen date for this event is wrong. If we choose the December 23 correlation that crossing actually occurred during the 1870s. If you use that correlation we should already be dead or have transformed our consciousnesses. Further, solstices were unimportant to the Maya. Van Stone says that “when faced with a choice of an auspicious day on which to schedule an important event, Maya almost never chose a solstice or an equinox.” The likelihood that the winter solstice three years from now was significant is slim.

The idea of five LC cycles forming earlier and current creation is mainly based on circumstantial evidence because the Aztecs mention that they live in the fifth creation/Sun and that four earlier ones have preceded this one. It is further argued that Popol Vuh from the early Colonial period also mentions earlier creations that have been destroyed. However, Popol Vuh was written down in the highlands of Guatemala after a century of Aztec influence and several centuries of contacts with Central Mexico. Although there are earlier traces of the same mythology in much earlier lowland iconography and epigraphy one should read Popol Vuh carefully. Just remember how much the early missionaries distorted the data used by later Mesoamericanists when they created a multilayered cosmological model.

Similar processes of hybridization occurred in Prehispanic times as well. As far as I know there is no evidence of multiple creations in Classic and Late Formative iconography or epigraphy. Only one earlier creation is mentioned (particularly at Palenque). Further, the Aztec creations are multiples of Calendar Round (CR) cycles (52 year long periods). One is 7 CRs long, another is 6 CRs long and two others are 13s CR long. Following this logic the multiple LCs would also be 7 baktuns long and 6 baktuns long, etc. In Jenkins’s model all cycles are 13 baktuns long. Thus, the 2012ers pick something here and something else there and create a non-existing cycle. Further, all Aztec Suns experienced a period of limbo, the cycles did not begin immediately after one and another as is argued to have occurred with the LC cycles. Neither are the Suns completely cyclical since every new cycle is an improvement of the earlier one. Earlier creations were unstable but the current one is stable. Van Stone argues that this Sun could last for ever since it is in balance. Both Aztec and Popol Vuh says this is the final creation so even if there were multiple creations preceding this one, they apparently saw no end in sight. That is just Christian end of days talking.

However, there is evidence that the Maya knew of the precession of the equinoxes as a phenomenon and they may actually have attributed some relevance to it. But they never divided it into five parts or creations. Van Stone mentions that Barbara MacLeod has detected an interval of time that the is called 3-11-pik/baktun. If you multiply 3, 11 and 144,000 (the number of days in a baktun) you end up at 13,010.5 years which is roughly half the length of the precession cycle. The rulers celebrated a portion of this long interval. Every 8,660^th day (roughly 24 years) there is an 11-Pik/Baktun station in the LC. A long-lived ruler that experienced three of these stations (71 years) would be given the title 3-11-Pik Ajaw. 71 years is also the time needed for the equinox sun to precess one day. However, the well known archaeoastronomer Anthony Aveni is skeptical to MacLeod’s ideas.

As mentioned in earlier posts, the idea that the LC will end on 13 baktun is just a projection of the beginning of the current LC (which began at 13.0.0.0.0, in 3114 B.C.) to the supposed end date. Monument 6 at Tortuguero mentions this future date but there is no indication that there will be a change in cycles. However, there are at least three other monuments in the Maya area that describe future events beyond 13.0.0.0.0. These are the Hieroglyphic Stairway at Yaxchilan, the West Panel of the Temple of the Inscriptions at Palenque, and Stela 10 at Tikal (three rather large and important sites, not an “obscure” and fairly “insignificant” site like Tortuguero).

Van Stone mentions a step from the Hieroglyphic Stairway at Yaxchilan that depicts two dwarves playing ball. There is a LC above them (9.15.13.6.9) but this also contains larger time-periods that relate to this creation, not the earlier one. These periods are all stuck at 13 and are believed to be “symbolic”. The inscriptions at Palenque mention an event in the year AD 4772, which is within the next piktun, indicating that the baktuns are 20 and not 13. The Tikal inscriptions have a date of 1.11.19.9.3.11.2.? (the k’in position is unknown). Here the higher orders are not stuck at 13, the piktun coefficient is 19 and number 13 is not given any special treatment on this monument. In short, Yaxchilan, Palenque and Tikal all had different ways to record events. In the great meta-narrative of the “ancient Maya civilization”, such differences tend to be erased by 2012ers.

Stela 10 to the right

As Van Stone argues: “It seems that different schools of time‐reckoning existed in different city‐states. These were proud, squabbling polities, constantly jockeying for power like Athens and Sparta. When one thinks about it, it seems much more likely that they would have competing mythologies and scientific systems, than that they would have been of one accord.”

Thus, to say that the “Maya culture” had one homogeneous system of recording dates is dead wrong and this belief relies on Westernized/Christian assumptions. But I am afraid the 2012ers will not be able to understand this, their ideas solely rest on arborescent models where everything can be traced back to a master-signifier (this one may differ depending on one’s preferences). Some of these people do not even see Aztec Suns as myths but as evidence of what really happened. There is no way one can debate with such people.

I am not an expert on Egyptology but I do have an old hobby-like interest in that field. This resulted in a trip to Egypt in 1990. At that time I visited Saqqara and from that place one can see Dashur where the founder of the fourth dynasty, Sneferu, constructed two pyramids (the Red and the Bent pyramids). His first construction project was as far as I know to finish up Huni’s pyramid at nearby Meidum. A while ago it was noted that Sneferu may have initiated the construction of a fourth pyramid at Seila, close to the Fayoum Oasis. This one is less preserved and is only 7 m tall in its current state of preservation. It has a four stepped core built of small local limestone blocks. This is not the only small step pyramid in Egypt. At least six others exists in-between Seila and Aswan. All seems to date to the late 3^rd dynasty to the early 4^th dynasty. In fact, most of them have been attributed to the last ruler of the 3^rd dynasty (Huni).

These pyramids lack internal chambers and underground structures. They appear not to have been true tombs. No evidence of funerary temples exists. Some Egyptologists believe that they were cenotaphs (fake tombs) of queens, or maybe shrines dedicated to Horus and/or Seth, or early sun temples, or representation of the primeval mound where life emerged.

Now, on a blog that I frequently visit, Talking Pyramids, it is said that Kerry Muhlestein at BYU (Brigham Young University) believes he has found evidence of a unified plan of Sneferu’s four pyramids. According to him we must change our understanding of the purpose of these pyramids. Muhlestein says that they were built to work in conjunction with each other. Pyramids cannot just be tombs since Sneferu built four when he only needed one for the tomb. Muhlestein does not reveal anything more than this so we have to wait for the official report. What I would like to know is why later pharaohs did not built such unified plans. Some changes in how pyramid assemblages were formed must have taken place after Sneferu.

I am sure this research will result in an increased activity among 2012ers and others who probably will try to fit these pyramids to star maps and claim it is an ancient knowledge delivered to the Egyptians from outer space and/or from Atlantis. That would not surprise me at all. Since Muhlestein is at BYU and apparently knows the Book of Mormon I guess we will see an increased activity among Mormons as well.

Just a couple of days after Stephen Houston’s visit to Stockholm I got an invitation to participate in a session in next year’s TAG-US (Theoretical Archaeological Group). It will be held at Brown University where Houston is located. The session is called Time warps and is organized by Sarah Kautz and Shannon Lee Dawdy from University of Chicago. The topic concerns sites, contexts, artifacts, or landscapes that challenge linear chronologies (such as recycling, heirlooming, antiquing, and renovation). I need to come up with something interesting and I think I will discuss the Postclassic and Colonial reusage of older buildings and caves in Mexico in relation to either Bergson’s idea of duration and/or Deleuze’s three syntheses of time. Some Whiteheadean ideas on events may also be of relevance. I just need to combine this with the “Maya view of time” as well. That is the tricky part and I have not done that part of my research yet. The other tricky part is to get that whole thing financed.

I have not posted anything on the 2012 circus since the day before Emmerich’s disaster movie (which I have not seen yet and I think I’ll wait for the DVD). This is because I got tired of “debating” with people who apparently lack any form of education beyond high school (you know, people who have chosen not to be corrupted by the higher education – never mind that they already have been taught how to read and write and become part of that horrible mainstream world that they despise). I have decided to leave them alone most of the time but I still observe them and I will probably activate my debates now and then (particularly around December 21, 2012).

I just checked out the Swedish 2012 forum and saw a link to a Youtube clip with a woman called Jude Currivan. The 2012ers are apparently impressed by her “titles” as if this adds credibility to what she says. According to her website she “has experienced multidimensional realities and researched consciousness, perennial wisdom and metaphysics since early childhood. She holds a PhD in Archaeology researching ancient cosmologies and an Oxford University Masters Degree in Physics specializing in cosmology and quantum physics.”

Like I have said with Calleman and more recently with Hasenpflug, if you must advertise yourself with a title following your name most of the time you are probably a fraud who thinks a title can make up for all the nonsense you come up with. Calleman holds a PhD in a completely different subject than the books he sells (that is clearly to be dishonest to one’s readers). Currivan has added PhD after her name on most of the pages on her website. Now, why does she mention the university (Oxford) when it comes to her MA, but not her PhD? Where did she get her PhD? If her dissertation contains the same nonsense her website contains, it must have been a diploma mill. Maybe she got her degree from Fairfax University, like Sweden’s own Minister for Employment (Sven-Otto Littorin).

So what does she has to say about 2012 then? Well, she says that the “leaders of the Mayan people of Central America, whose ancestors devised the intricate calendar, disagree [with the apocalyptic scenario of Emmerich’s movie]. They say that whilst marking the end of an era, it is our materialistic world-view and lifestyles rather than the material world itself that may be transformed. For them and many leaders of change emerging around our planet, 2012 offers us the opportunity of a new beginning… The Mayans say the choice is ours to make.” She obviously has no clue of what the Maya say or said. She should be able to do some qualified research on this since she got a PhD. If she did she would realize that the 2012 circus has nothing to do with the Maya. It is only a gringo phenomenon.

This is post #200. I thought for long what I should post to celebrate this occasion. Since my “new” direction is towards the “archaeology of water” I thought that water would be appropriate. My future research will range from the small scale of water molecules to oceans and global climate systems. Exoplanets (planets outside our solar system) are for sure beyond the scope of an archaeology of water. Anyhow, astronomers have now found the smallest known exoplanet (only 2.7 times larger than the Earth). It encircles a small red M-dwarf star 40 light years from us. The planet is probably too hot (190 degrees C) for liquid water (at normal Earth atmospheric pressures), but since the planet’s atmosphere pressure is higher than on Earth, water may still be liquid. Exciting discovery that indicates that there might be even smaller exoplanets around these common stars.

DeLanda and Deleuze use the concept of multiplicity. It is crucial since it used to move away from essentialist thinking. Instead of explaining away essences as social or mental constructions Deleuze’s realism replaces essences with a theory of morphogenesis that is based in the idea of difference. The different is not a lack of resemblance, but it is productive and is what drives processes. Matter emerges through intensive differences such as temperature, pressure, speed and chemical concentration (DeLanda 2002:4).

Species and objects are not timeless categories but they are historically constituted entities. They resemble each others because they have passed through the same immanent processes. This is where the concept of multiplicity is introduced. A multiplicity is “a nested set of vector fields related to each other by symmetry-breaking bifurcations, together with the distributions of attractors which define each of its embedded levels.” (DeLanda 2002:32). Multiplicity is related to the term manifold which is what designates a geometrical space with properties (DeLanda 2002:10).

Multiplicity has a “variable number of dimensions and…the absence of a supplementary (higher) dimension imposing an extrinsic coordinatization, and hence, an extrinsically defined unity.” It is not a combination of the one and the many, it belongs only to the many that does not need a unity to form a system. In contrast, essences posses such unity that defines the essence and it is located in a transcendent space. A multiplicity is immanent which means that it does not have a supplementary dimension (DeLanda 2002:12-13).

How do these multiplicities relate to physical processes that forms material objects that we as archaeologists encounter? The state of an object at an instant is also a single point in the manifold. This is the state space. Through this we can understand the changes of the state as a trajectory in a space of possible states.  Although the instantaneous state is simple, the space embedding the state of the object becomes more complex (DeLanda 2002:14). State space trajectories are possibilities. The ontological stance that argues that only the trajectory associated with an actual sequence is of importance ignores that the whole population of trajectories display regularities in a system’s possible histories. These regularities shape the actual history. The regularities displayed by various possible trajectories are results of the singularities that make up the vector field (DeLanda 2002:33-36).

Goodwin exemplifies this with embryonic development. It begins with primary axes that have bifurcated from a uniform state. These axes bifurcate into spatially periodic patterns, such as segments of an insect. This universality or mechanism-independence of multiplicities is important. Multiplicities are concrete universals which mean that they are concrete sets of attractors, as tendencies in physical processes, connected by bifurcations, as transitions of the physical processes. The universality of the multiplicity is divergent since its various realizations do not resemble it. The multiplicities only give form to processes and not the end product. This means that the same multiplicity lead up to divergent end results. The concrete universals are meshed together into a continuum, something that makes the identity of the multiplicities diffuse (DeLanda 2002:22).

Now, a causeway is a multiplicity, bifurcated from a uniform state that it shares with platforms. Its extended axis emerges through segments. This construction process is similar throughout the Maya area and is therefore the only reason why causeways are similar across a large area, not because it is the realization of a transcendent form. Only morphogenetic processes without essentials can approach real life processes.

One and a half month ago I wrote a post on the southern section of the monumental part of El Pilar in western Belize where I worked in 1998, 2000 and 2001. This post describes the northern part of this monumental area.

Directly east of Plaza Faisan that unites Nohol Pilar to the south and Xaman Pilar to the north lies Plaza Escoba. It is has been cut through by the modern El Pilar dirt road. North of this plaza lies Plaza Rosa which has two small pyramids, partly constructed by chert nodules. From Escoba it was possible to enter the northeast corner of Plaza Faisan which is the second largest plaza at El Pilar. Faisan is surrounded by several low platforms. The plaza floor slanted to the west and drained water into a large aguada. It has been argued that Plaza Faisan was a public space due to its low lying topography and non-restricted access.

Xaman Pilar seen from the southwest

North of Plaza Faisan lies several small quadrangles which were groups of buildings enclosing a smaller plaza. Plaza Gumbolimbo is three meters higher than Plaza Faisan. From there is a stairway up to Plaza Ixim which resembles a pool, since its small plaza is surrounded by high platforms and range-structures. On the eastern side lie EP19, a 13 m high and heavily looted pyramidal temple. From the bottom of Plaza Imix there rose a stairway up to the acropolis called H’men Na.

The acropolis consists of several small enclosed plazas and from Faisan there was only one way to this restricted area,. There is an increasing enclosure, restriction and elevation as one proceeds from Faisan to H’men Na. There has been some suggestions that many sites gradually became more and more enclosed throughout the Classic period (von Falkenhausen 1985). The enclosed plazas are: Plaza Hatz (28 x 5m), Plaza Subin (17 x 40m), Plaza Jobo (18 x 7m), Plaza Kibix (4 x 24m) and Plaza Manax (14 x 55m). H’men Na rises 10 m above Plaza Imix. Plaza Jobo has been excavated and it has several rooms with benches and vaults. The highest structure is EP 20 which was 19 m above Plaza Imix and 9 m above Plaza Jobo. Plaza Manax is located at the northern end of the acropolis. North of this plaza it is a steep 10 m drop down to Plaza Lec but there is no visual access (Wernecke 1994:42-43).

Plaza Lec is the northern end of Xaman Pilar. The temple on its eastern side has three rooms. North of this area lies a heavily quarried hill with a major plazuela group on its top. On the west side of the acropolis lies smaller plazas with a rangestructure and a long platform.

The next post on El Pilar will concern the west sections of the site which are are located in Guatemala (Pilar Poniente and Kum). It will also deal with the household compound called Tzunu’un (hummingbird) where I excavated in 1998. The final post will be about the causeways/linear features at the site.

Åsa at Ting och tankar (btw, Sweden’s best archaeological blog) has informed me that About.com:Archaeology is looking for a writer knowledgeable in Precolumbian archaeology and history. Maybe some of the readers of this blog can make that contribution?

My travel section on the blog has been slumbering for quite some time. As it happens to be almost one year ago when my wife and I went to China I thought about the old town of the mega metropolis Chongqing (重庆) where we spent last Boxing Day. Chongqing is a fast growing city and is now the largest inland city of China, located on the banks of the Yangtze River. Chongqing was originally part of the Sichuan province but since 1997 it is one of four municipalities in China and these are not part of provinces but are directly subordinated the national government. The other are Beijing, Shanghai and TianJin. Chongqing is the largest municipality.

Ciqikou (磁器口) means porcelain port but the place is also called Small Chongqing. It is the old harbor of Chongqing and here lived rich merchants. The town only covers 1.18 sqkm but it still maintains Ming and Qing architecture, of which there is almost nothing to see in central Chongqing whose skyline is dominated by skyscrapers. Ciqikou is today dominated by local shops, tea houses and local Sichuan street performances.

It was founded in 998 by emperor Zhenzong (998-1004) of the Song dynasty. It’s original name was Baiyan but during the Ming dynasty the name was changed to Longyinzhen and it became an important land and river port along the west bank of Jialing River. It was during the Qing dynasty that the town became famous for its porcelain making. It was during this time the town received its current name. There is a Buddhist temple overlooking the town but I never visited it.

Yesterday it was the Nobel Prize day in Sweden. I also received a strange email on my old Göteborg account. It was entitled “Truth and Fraud in Science – Indus: Cradle of Civilization” and was sent by someone called Rainer Hasenpflug. It basically says that scientists “cover essential information on the cradle of civilization to manipulate and mislead the colleagues on the reason of their personal and political benefit. Or, in which scientific magazine we could read about the translated inscriptions of the Indus Civilization (ca. 2500 BC)? For many reasons, I think we shouldn’t crawl for this fraud and dictatorship, and should use instead of this the coming holidays to remember the sense of truth in academic science. To promote the sake of objective and uncensored academic discussions on all scientific fields it would be helpful to set up the Truth Project:

http://www.indus-civilization.info/truth-project.html

All about ancient India as cradle of civilization you find at the far known website:

http://www.indus-civilization.info/”

This sounded suspiciously similar to the 2012 prophets who claim to be misunderstood by true scientists. Judging from where the book “The Inscriptions of the Indus Civilization” is published (Books on Demand), I guess it has not passed any peer-review and I doubt there even is a peer-reviewed article out there as well.

Anyway, I had to check out the website and I cannot say that I was surprised. Hasenpflug is apparently promoting his book which was published in 2006. He tries hard to show how great and magnificent the Indus civilization was, using words and phrasings from a very old fashioned school of thought. Here are some quotes:  the Indus civilization “has been standing on the top of the development of the world’s culture and civilization.”, “The Indus inscriptions are an invalueable treasure of information on the ‘original’ Indo-European and world civilization”, “The people of today India and Pakistan can be proud on their cultural heritage! In fact the Indus Civilization has not disappeared, but it was setting the great starting point for their civilizations as has been existing until today. Especially the great Indian civilization is in straight line the descendand of the Indus Civilization and its achievements”.

Anyone who claims a straight linear development of a glorious civilization has his or her mindset trapped in either a nationalist agenda or have not read archaeological literature from the 1960s and onwards.

I cannot tell if the decipherment is valid or not, but at least he proposes that the Indus script was based on syllables and pictograms. However, he claims that “the texts give innumerable information on the world view of the Indus empire’s state leaders, on the social life, religion, international conflicts, warfare, economy, linguistics etc. But the greatest sensation is that the texts show the Indus age as the legendary Vedic age with king Rama as its empire’s founder.” At least the last sentence sounds highly unlikely: a typical mixture of myths with real events, reminiscent of that old school of thought I mentioned above. I just wonder who is the fraud here? If one has to entitle himself Dipl.-Ing. I guess one tries to show that one has an academic credibility. Unfortunately, what I have seen on the website indicates the opposite.

I guess the date of sending this email was not random. On the website we can read that their goal is “to get the Nobel Prize for the incredible cultural heritage of India”. Fat chance…

The past two weeks have seen changes in what should become my next project. Before last week’s workshop I thought that focusing on defacement of Maya monuments and its relation to the Deleuzian concept of Faciality was the way to go. Now I think I will just settle for an article or two instead. This is for two reasons: I will probably not be able to reveal much new information and it will be difficult to get a long-term funding for such a topic.

Then I thought that I perhaps should follow the development of the 2012 circus. I planned to follow the 2012ers, their critiques, the media, etc. for a couple of years into 2013 and see the changes in their rhetorics and focus. Such a popularized perspective would be easier to finance and it would also get media coverage. The main drawback is that one has to put up with lunatics, frauds, baaaad “archaeology”, etc. I have already lost my interest in the whole circus and I do not wish to draw the wrong audience to my blog. One article on the 2012 nonsense will be enough.

So where am I right now on that shaky and winding road toward new project funding? I think strategically and intend to follow the flow I entered with my current project on climate change and cave use. My next project will be “an archaeology of water.” I will no longer dig in the dirt, it is time to take a dive into the flow of matter. No longer will I be delimited by the Maya area. Who will support this project? That is the most difficult question to answer.

The Nordic Network for Amerindian Studies (Netindis) conference on “Getting back to Matter” in Copenhagen was initially scheduled for the fall of 2009  but logistic considerations induced the organizers to postpone the  event. The  conference has now  been re-scheduled for January 22-23, 2010. The extended deadline for abstracts is December 14, 2009. There is no registration fee as the Network has secured funding for  this conference. Participants are invited to a complimentary  conference dinner on Friday, January 22nd. However, participants are  responsible for their own travel and accommodation. Please let the Network coordinator know, no later than December 1st  2009, if you plan to participate in the conference and in the dinner on Friday night. For more information on details look at my earlier post. I particularly look forward to Tim Ingold’s paper “The materials of life.”

On Wednesday morning I took an early train to Stockholm to meet up with Stephen Houston who had been invited to Stockholm University. He held an interesting lecture on the visible and the invisible (but sensed) in Classic Maya art and architecture. On Thursday he was the discussant on a workshop that the PAG-group had put together (on the “archaeology of the senses”). After the workshop we went to restaurant Gondolen. On Friday five of us went on an excursion in the area around Enköping and Uppsala and saw two causeways, some rock carvings, and mounds. I returned to Göteborg just before midnight.

Two days ago I got an email from Stephanie Frasco who is working on a project for the History Channel.  They are searching for lead investigators to host a tv series documentary on the topic of American symbology/iconography. It is called Decoded. She asked me to post this link in case anyone reading this blog post is interested to participate. They are looking for a real life Robert Langdon. If you are compatible with Dan Brown, you should contact them. As for myself, I am just a Deleuzian minded guy who attempts to circumscribe the overcoding of the signifying regime (the Dan Brown kind of iconographical analyzes). My decoding is of another sort than they are looking for. I attempt to show that there is no master signifier whereas Langdon is all about finding the master signifier.

 

In case you wonder why I am not posting much now, it is because I am trying to come up with an interesting idea for my next project and the workshop next week. I can tell you right now that it will have to do with defacement of portraits in Maya art and architecture. This project will work along these theoretical lines:

Defaced people on a ballcourt panel from Cancuen

The human subject emerges from relations of exteriority and from parts to whole. In the empiricist philosophy of David Hume, Deleuze (1991) finds an alternative to the linguisticality of experience that has been part of the Kantian and Hegelian traditions. Based on Deleuze’s reading of Hume, DeLanda argues that subjective experience is formed from distinct and separable sense impressions. Ideas derived from these impressions are direct replicas of the impressions without any representational link (as a contrast to Kant’s faculties of representation). The ideas only have a lower intensity than the impressions (cf. Bergson 2004). Therefore, each kind of impression (visual, aural, passion) has a singular individuality and existence. They are heterogeneous and cannot be reduced to one another (DeLanda 2006, 48-50). Emotions and senses like sight and hearing are depicted in the expressive record in the Maya area (Houston et al. 2006). This data can be used to understand how these impressions were understood from the ideas formed by the impressions.

 

The subject pursues a goal through the principle of utility and establishes relations among ideas through the principle of association. The association of ideas gives the singular impressions and ideas a unity, an assemblage. Our habits of grouping ideas and comparing them transform a population of individual ideas into an emergent whole (DeLanda 2006). Habitual repetition creates a stable identity for the assemblage and habits sustain the association of ideas (cf. Turner 1994). The human being is habitual and creative at the same time.

On the personal scale, the main effect of language is to form beliefs. To believe in the ideas brings them closer to the impressions. However, it is often the intensity of a belief that drives social action, rather than its linguistic proposition and semantic content (DeLanda 2006, 48-52). Thus, human agents did not study, analyze and contemplate the monumental iconography into the cosmological and symbolic details described by various Mayanists (cf. Normark 2008a). Monumental iconography rather worked like Gell’s (1998) sense of index that directly affected the viewer. It was the intensity of the beliefs associated with the impressions of viewing the iconography that created an intense ritual arena. The iconography was also a way for a signifying regime to direct the ideas into a homogeneous form, and these ideas would then affect their components (the impressions) as well.  

The subject emerges from subpersonal components and it interacts with other subjects through short-lived assemblages called encounters, which consists of the co-presence of human bodies and materialities (DeLanda 2006, 52-53). Sartre’s (1991) concept of serial action, of how people form temporary series in relation to materialities, is a complementary perspective in the study of social encounters (Fahlander 2003; Normark 2007). Locations where series of people formed and encounters occurred can be found in abundance in the archaeological record: house lots, causeways, plazas, rooms, water reservoirs, sinkholes, caves, quarries, etc. (Normark 2006a). Encounters can also be seen in the iconography (Reents-Budet 2001), detected through the epigraphic record mentioning nobility visiting or interacting with other nobility (Schele and Mathews 1991; Stuart 1999), and the location where this occurred (Stuart and Houston 1994).

An encounter is territorialized by behaviors that define the borders, such as grinding corn in a house lot (Hutson 2004), quarrying stone (Abrams 1994), and the meeting between nobles from different sites (Martin and Grube 2000). Embarrassment and dishonor can be seen as deterritorializing processes in an encounter. We have examples of this in the iconography of defeated captives (Houston 2001; Martin 2001; Schele and Freidel 1990; Schele and Miller 1986). The same event is also a territorializing process for the victorious ruler and the organization of which the ruler was part. Such lethal encounters were eventful and allowed the participants an expressive possibility to display character, such as courage and integrity (DeLanda 2006, 55; Normark 2007). Defacement is an effect of similar encounters.