Do not expect any longer posts in the next two weeks or so on this blog. The reason is that I have a couple of deadlines for articles and I really should send away a bunch of articles as soon as possible. The deadline articles are the articles Caves in the Cochuah region and Miniature shrines in the Cochuah region which will be found in an anthology about the anthropology and archaeology of the Cochuah region, edited by Justine Shaw and published by New Mexico University Press.

There are six other articles in the pipeline as well and at least four of them should be sent away within two weeks. These are The Spanish Colonial period’s relevance for the mega-drought hypothesis; The Chicxulub fracture zone and the Spanish Colonial border; Not only the home of the Earth Lord: Maya caves as smooth, striated, and holey spaces and A nomadology of Maya causeways. Before the end of February I also hope to have sent away Maya caves and the cosmological trap and Hyperobjects, the hydrological cycle and political affect at Yo’okop.

This is a true ketchup effect (in the original Swedish sense I must add). 2011 resulted in only one published book review and now almost everything comes out of the bottle.

A year from now I will send away an application for a new project. There is plenty of time to develop some ideas and time is exactly the central part of the project. It will take too long to describe the overall frame of the project idea as it melts ideas from neuroscience (or rather neuroarchaeology), “Western” time philosophy, object-oriented philosophy, Maya time keeping and a variety of archaeological data. I need some material or narrative with which to begin with. It goes something like this (it is still speculative).

I associate the use of the Maya Long Count calendar with the emergence and decline of divine kingship. Although the first inscriptions are not from the Maya area, the divine kings came to be associated with the Long Count during the Classic period, something which can be supported by the fact that both the institution of ajawlel and the Long Count disappeared with the collapse. We find a rather different situation in the Postclassic with the more “Mexicanized” or “international” style. In the northern lowlands the Long Count was replaced by the Short Count which is cyclical (which I do not think the Long Count was). Hence, I disagree with Prudence Rice’s argument that the may-cycle model existed in the Classic period as well. The “lower” parts of the old Long Count were still in use, such as the katuns, but now the time periods took on a cyclical character rather than piling up on each other and increasing the burden. I propose that this change partly had to do with more intensive contacts with Central Mexican ideas. Later Aztec beliefs do emphasize beliefs in multiple creations/Suns and I suspect similar ideas rubbed off in the Maya lowlands. This is why we find mentions of earlier creations in Popol Vuh and in Yucatec myths. As far as I know, we do not find evidence of multiple creations in Classic period and Late Formative iconography or texts. Correct me if I am wrong.

As noted by Stanley Guenter in a discussion on facebook, it is possible that the idea of multiple creations was inspired by the rise and fall of earlier kingdoms and cities. This may have been far more obvious in central Mexico where the ruins of Teotihuacan became crucial in the creation myths of the later Aztecs. These ruins were never hidden in the way that ruins of the Mirador basin were as they quickly became absorbed by the forest. There is evidence of later reoccupation at Nakbe during the Classic period and the Kan kings later chose Calakmul as their capital perhaps because it was connected to the ruins of El Mirador by a causeway (probably overgrown by then though).

Reoccupation of earlier sites is a common pattern in the Maya lowlands. During the Postclassic many Terminal Classic sites were reoccupied in the Cochuah region. So far, over 100 miniature shrines crown earlier “pre-collapse” structures in the region. Such re-occupations likely triggered a belief in earlier creations of “pre-sunrise” beings as Byron Hamann calls them.

This also means that when the Long Count calendar originally was launched in the first centuries BC, far fewer ruins of earlier cities and kingdoms were known, perhaps with the exceptions of nearby ruins in the Olmec area. What I propose here, then, is that the cyclical view of time emerged slowly alongside the “cumulative” time of the Long Count as people interacted with the physical traces of their past and also received similar ideas from Central Mexico. As the “collapse” ultimately destroyed the Long Count as well, the cyclical Short Count replaced it as a logical outcome.

That’s about it so far. Somewhat speculative thus far but let time tell…

A new book has just been published on ancient Maya technology. Those seeking to know something about intergalactic travelling devices, such as stargates, will be greatly disappointed. This is book is called The Technology of Maya Civilization: Political Economy and Beyond in Lithic Studies and is edited by Geoffrey Braswell, Zachary X. Hruby, and Oswaldo Chinchilla Mazariegos. This is the book description from Amazon:

The ancient Maya shaped their world with stone tools. Lithic artifacts helped create the cityscape, were central to warfare and hunting, were key to craft activities, were used to process food, and were employed in ritual performance. This volume expands our understanding of the past by considering Maya lithic artifacts made of chert, obsidian, silicified limestone, and jade. Using these as sources of data, lithic specialists examine the relationship between ancient people and natural resources, and ask questions regarding social organization and political economy. The editors bring together a detailed, comprehensive view of Maya stone artifacts that is crafted from new research, progressive analytical methods, and innovative anthropological theory. Thought provoking introductions and conclusions contextualize the past thirty years of research on Maya stone tools and look to the future of the field. Particular emphasis is given not to lithic technology, but to lithic systems as a technology of civilization. Stone artifacts were not merely cultural products, but, in conjunction with the people who used them, were tools that reproduced, modified, and created the fabric of society. Case studies based on original data collected at archaeological sites in Guatemala, Mexico, Belize, and Honduras form the bulk of the volume. Limitations presented by the availability of resources, the social context of production, the control of technology and esoteric knowledge, and political economy are key issues addressed by the contributors. The concluding remarks argue that Maya lithic analysis needs to expand to include more than studies of political economy. The chapters in this innovative volume do just that.

Many 2012ers believe that the Long Count calendar is cyclical and that creation events literally will repeat (they believe Maya mythology describes real events). If we follow this logic people would have seen some pretty amazing events in the last two centuries. Inscriptions from Palenque describe events that took place before the creation of the world as we know it. These events are given a Long Count date but not that of the current era. We can follow David Stuart’s argument that these “pre-era” dates actually are part of a much greater Long Count (which I will describe in future posts), or we can follow the argument made by Gronemeyer and MacLeod that the Maya lacked negative numbers and because of this they wrote their “Before Creation” dates as if they were part of an earlier Long Count.

Those two alternatives are not popular among 2012ers (they are unknown to them). 2012ers either believe the Long Count ends on 13 Baktun or that it will restart a new cycle. It is the latter view that is of interest here as this is the one John Major Jenkins favors. He claims that the US presidents Barack Obama and George W Bush are modern versions of some of the characters in Popol Vuh. George W Bush is argued to be Vuqub Caquix, or 7 Macaw, that was shot down by Hun Hunahpu (aka Obama).

Now, if we ignore the factual errors of the relation between Bush and Obama (Bush could not be reelected, etc.), on what date in the Long Count was Vuqub Caquix shot down? Here we must first ignore some other facts because Popol Vuh never made use of the Long Count, it is an Early Colonial manuscript, less continuity exist between Classic period lowland mythology and the late Postclassic highland mythology than once was believed, etc. However, Jenkins has been inspired by Freidel, Schele, and Parker’s Maya Cosmos which contains many ideas rejected by later epigraphers. On page 71 of this book these authors write that Vuqub Caquix (or Itzam Yeh as they call the Classic period version) was defeated on the Long Count date of 12.18.4.5.0 1 Ajaw 3 Kank’in (26/5 3149 BC).

Following the logic set up Jenkins himself the same Long Count position (12.18.4.5.0) would have occurred on October 6, 1977. On this date some Spanish fascists attacked communists and the prototype for a MiG made its maiden flight (it was not shot down by a blowgun as far as I know…). Nothing extraordinary happened. Note that the haab position of this Long Count date is different from that of the “pre-era” date (18 Ch’en). This is evidence in itself that the Long Count dates are not the same, something Jenkins conceals by never mentioning the haab dates in his discussion (you only see the tzolkin position of 4 Ajaw in his texts regarding the past and future 13 Baktun dates).

An even more extraordinary event is the slaying of the celestial crocodile. The blood emerging from this decapitated crocodile was connected to pooling of blood in huge quantities and it created the sea where the earth/turtle later floated. This event occurred on 12.10.12.14.18 1 Edznab 6 Yaxkin (3301 BC, I lack the exact date since the calendar date converter I use only goes back to 0.0.0.0.0). In “our era” this Long Count date fell on the 27^th of June 1828 (and it contained the Calendar Round date 1 Edznab 1 Sip). Earlier this month in 1828 Simón Bolivar declared war on Peru. I fail to see any historical references to the emergence of oceans from a slayed crocodile around this time.

I am sure Jenkins and others have explanations that go something like this: it is not the exact repetition of the Long Count, only general tendencies repeat. This is simply cherry picking. In some cases, i.e. when it suits ones idea, one claim that the correspondence is exact. When it fails, one come up with excuses and demand less rigidity. This is how a crank and a mythmaker works.

Today it is the first day of the Chinese lunisolar year. It is not just the year of the Dragon, but the year of the Water Dragon, to be followed by the year of the Water Snake next year. Let’s not hope some people connects these facts with some other beings believed to be associated with the Maya and their supposed “end date”. What would be the odds of that?

I am sure this image from the Dresden Codex will be distorted into the Chinese Water Dragon, particularly since we have the Moon Goddess in the picture as well.

I have read two contrasting texts this weekend. The first one is related to Semir Osmanagic’s visit to the Linnaeus University last year, after an invitation by Cornelius Holtorf. In an article called Beyond crusades: how (not) to engage with alternative archaeologies Holtorf is appalled about the way archaeologists deals with “alternative” or “fringe” archaeologists, such as various 2012ers in my case. He emphasizes “the social and cultural needs that both scientific and alternative archaeologies address and suggest that the main significance of archaeology does not lie in the specific insights gained about the past but in the very process of engaging with the material remains of the past in the present. Critical understanding and dialogue, not dismissive polemics, is the appropriate way to engage with the multiple pasts and alternative archaeologies in contemporary society” (p 544).

In short, Holtorf argues for a relativistic view of the past. He has been influenced by Paul Feyerabend who rejected all universal methodological rules. Any interpretation and method is as good as any other and archaeologists should not have the upper hand in interpretation. Holtorf exemplifies the dismissive tone some archaeologists have of “alternative archaeologists” with Garrett Fagan who dismisses views that are not in line with his scientific approach “as ‘ideologically driven pseudoscience’ usually drawing on certain mythic motifs, such as ‘The Vindicated Thinker’ who embarks on a quest ‘tackling some terrific mystery or secret of the past’ and finally emerges as the hero that brings sensationalist news that requires ‘rewriting the history books from page one’” (p 545). For Holtorf this is an opinionated and patronizing popular science writing that is damaging for archaeology because there are mythic overtones in the scientific enterprise as well and the “Vindicated Thinker” is a powerful theme in many popularized accounts of archaeology.

I do understand what Holtorfs is arguing for and I have for sure committed myself to dismissive rhetoric, patronizing, etc. in my dealings with the 2012ers, but I have never claimed that there is ONE truth or ONE appropriate method. Neither have I posed as a “Vindicated Thinker.” My “opponents”, the 2012ers, usually interpret my position as the “orthodox” view. My views of archaeology can hardly be seen as orthodox as I argue for a complete object-oriented perspective where humans are peripheral. What I argue for is a realist approach, not a social constructionist approach which is at the core of Holtorf’s view of archaeology.

Hence, it is not a problem for Holtorf to invite a pseudoscientist like Osmanagic who terraform Bosnian hills/mountains into pyramids so that it suits his belief that they were built by aliens from the Pleiades (among other things). Osmanagic must be taken seriously. This is to me a truly disastrous way of dealing with “alternative archaeologies.” It simply gives them credibility which they do not deserve. Holtorf makes no effort, in this article anyway, to study the pseudoscientists themselves since he takes their side against the patronizing scientists.

In the second text, called Cranks and physics (thanks to John Hoopes for the link), Steven Novella discusses a particular kind of pseudoscientist, quite common among 2012ers. Here we find a better understanding of how the pseudoscientist argues, how they fail to understand the way science works, etc. This kind of pseudoscientist is the crank which “is a particular variety of pseudoscientist or “true believer” – one that tries very hard to be a real scientist but is hopelessly crippled by a combination of incompetence and a tendency to interpret their own incompetence as overwhelming genius.”

This crank is someone who has created an image of what science is like from popular culture (Hollywood productions, National Geographic, Discovery, etc). Here science is often portrayed as the work of the lone genius (the Vindicated Thinker) that develops ideas on his/her own. Advances in knowledge are often described as being scorned by the “orthodox” scientists. However, this is not how science work at all. All sciences demand knowledge about a huge amount of information before one can make any contributions at all. This means that one can only make a small contribution to science and this is after the ideas have been presented at conferences and passed through peer-reviews. This process “weeds out ideas that are fatally flawed or just hopelessly nonsensical. In other words – it weeds out cranks. Of course, cranks don’t like this, so they wail against the mainstream.”

2012ers usually lack any formal education in archaeology, astronomy, Maya studies, etc. and they usually see this as something positive. Instead of trying to understand the complexities inherent in all established knowledge, they reject it all, and create something else that never is consistent and filled with logical gaps. See my posts on Calleman for a perfect example.

If we follow Holtorf’s suggestions, these self-proclaimed 2012 experts must be taken seriously since the scientific view of the Maya calendar also is based on myths (the way various epigraphers are idolized for being crackers of codes, etc.). Calleman’s personalized cosmology claims that he has discovered that the Long Count reflects the evolution of the universe, life and consciousness, Osmanagic’s discovers the “mother of all pyramids” and Jenkins finds out the truth behind the most important date in the history of mankind, etc. Holtorf would conflate these New Age myth makers with the way an academic Mayanist might appear in popular media. The main difference is, of course, that the cranks whole self-image and commercial success rely on emphasizing their self-created myths. That is not the case for the scholar. We do not attack or debunk the cranks because we feel threatened by them, as Holtorf argues; we do it because we want science to be based on a great body of information that is of relevance to the contexts under discussion. The Big Bang and alien space ships do not seem relevant for understanding the Maya Long Count. Anyone can come up with fanciful interpretations, even me.

A crank

Guillermo de Anda’s team has found four bear skulls in a cenote that may date back to the end of the Ice-Age. They appear to have been found 50 m below the surface and the cenote was not filled with water at the time of their death.

I have been affiliated with the Cochuah Regional Archaeological Survey (CRAS) since 2003. This has resulted in five field seasons for me (2003, 2004, 2005, 2008 and 2010). The fieldwork has given me data for my dissertation project on causeways and my postdoctoral project on caves and climate change. I have designed my new project on water as an archaeological object in a way that does not need any fieldwork. However, CRAS moves on and one of the principal investigators, Justine Shaw, let me know today that they have received permission from INAH to continue with the excavation and mapping of several sites, including some of the cave sites that are part of my research. I wish I could join them but it will be difficult to squeeze in a field season for me this year for several reasons. If so, it would only be possible for less than two weeks. I wish them good luck and look forward to the report. This means that I’ll have to wait for this new data before I can publish my book on the caves. My three upcoming articles can still be sent away since they do not cover the same issues.

X marks the spot(s) or Dos Equis (not the favored beer among archaeologists though)

This year’s European Maya Conference (EMC) will be held in Helsinki. The theme of the conference is On Methods: How we know what we think we know about the Maya. I am not sure if I will attend it yet since I only participate in conferences where I deliver a paper of my own. Hence, my paper must be accepted first. I have an idea of a paper that suits the theme but I am not sure other people are interested in my crusade against ethnographic analogies which would be an important part of my paper. There are some interesting invited speakers though. I have never heard or met John Hoopes before and it would be interesting to hear him talk about the 2012 phenomenon.

I have just sent away a short contribution to a special issue of the online journal in public archaeology called JAS Arquelogía. The issue will deal with Semir Osmanagic and the fact that he was invited to a Swedish University last year. My contribution, apart from being the first blog post about this event, will primarily discuss the connections between Osmanagic and Mayanism.

Saturday Night Live attempts to make fun of the 2012 circus but the most amusing part of the video was clearly unintended. In this video you will find jokes that have been around for a while, such as the “Mayans ran out of space and stopped” or “the circle was not big enough”. What is the most amusing part? It is not the fact that they present the Aztec calendar stone as the “Mayan” calendar. The fun part is that they say that the Aztec calendar is really cool. Apart from the fact that they have a small-scale replica of an artifact associated with the Aztec calendar at hand, the Aztec calendar stone in itself is not a real calendar. The Aztec did not use it to measure time as it is presented in the video (as if it was a clock). If you do understand all of this, one can only laugh at the complete ignorance of the writers of the “jokes.”

Today it is Friday the 13th in the year of 13 Baktun. Whatever you do today be careful because he is back, the man behind the mask and the investiture (Jason aka Bolon Yokte’ K’uh).

As a critic of the 2012 circus, should I add more fuel to it or should I not? I have already suggested that 2012ers should look at 2027 if (or rather when) nothing happens later this year. 2027 is when the Aztec Calendar Round comes to a full circle next time (and the 2027ers can actually use the Aztec calendar stone without making the same mistake as the 2012ers do).

In any case, here is my fuel to the 2012ers. BBC reports on an analysis made by the bank Barclays Capital that shows an “unhealthy correlation” between the building of skyscrapers and the following financial crashes. The tallest buildings are usually the main examples of a much grander building boom which reflects a poor allocation of capital.

Examples brought up are the first skyscraper, the Equitable Life building in New York which was completed in 1873, just before a five-year recession, the Empire State building constructed before the Great Depression in 1929, Sears Tower in Chicago which was finished in 1974 and coincided with an oil shock, the Petronas Twin Towers in Kuala Lumpur which is correlated with the Asian financial crisis in 1997, Burj Khalifa which was completed just before Dubai’s economic decline in 2009. It is basically the speculation regarding property that drives the buildings upwards.

India has 14 skyscrapers under construction, including India Tower which will become the second tallest building in the world. Today China constructs 53% of the world’s skyscrapers. Even Chinese villages construct 300 m tall buildings. Chinese property market may drop by as much as 20% in value during this year and the next.

So, what is the connection between these tall buildings and financial crashes and 2012 and the Maya? Some people, including myself once upon a time (but no longer), argue that construction booms in the Maya area (and other parts of Mesoamerica) followed the periodicities of their calendar. On this blog there is a post that refers to an article I wrote in relation to the millennium about what I called “Baktuniarism”, a form of millenniarism related to the Long Count. I argued that great changes occurred around the Baktun endings in  354 BC, AD 41, 436, and 830 (according to the GMT correlation). Around these periods constructions of major buildings occurred and in some cases, economic declines occurred afterwards. If one ignores the period endings, there are notable changes in some polities after they constructed major buildings. Some of the tallest buildings at Tikal are quite late in the site’s history, which also is the case for Late Formative El Mirador. If we make analogies with other parts of the ancient world we notice that the pyramid projects in the 5^th and 6^th dynasties of the Old Kingdom of Egypt were considerably smaller than those built during the 4^th dynasty, probably the result of economic stress. Today I would not make much noise about these speculations apart from giving 2012ers some ideas.

Hence, for you 2012ers out there, think about it. Your assumed “end” of the Maya calendar coincides with an economic crisis, and man’s desire to build towards the sky (or down into the earth), are modern towers of Babel. China is on the rise as the world’s leading economy. Is it pure coincidence that the Chinese New Year (January 23, 2012) initiates the year of the Dragon to be followed by the year of the Snake in 2013, creatures which clearly are the same as Quetzalcoatl? And we all know that Quetzalcoatl is Satan don’t we? Remember that McKenna, by using the Chinese I-ching, already has established that all that remains after December 21, 2012 is change. Remember where you read these groundbreaking news first!

I realize that I have focused too much on the 2012 circus during the last month. There has not been much interesting news in Maya studies (not for me anyway). However, here is some interesting news that confirms an earlier hieroglyphic decipherment.

David Stuart once deciphered the “tobacco glyph” (MAY). A flask from around AD 700 contains the text Yo-‘OTOT-ti’u-MAY (which translates as “the home of his tobacco”). This was not enough to convince archaeologists that the flask had contained tobacco. Samples extracted from the flask detected nicotine which is a major component in tobacco. The flask most likely contained tobacco leaves. Some of these tobacco flasks were later used for other purposes and contained other substances, such as iron oxide used in burial rituals.

I have noted before that the 2012 phenomenon is filled with ethnocentric and even racist ideas. To claim that the Maya originated from outer space or that they were incapable of constructing pyramids is simply a devaluation of their intellectual capacity. These ideas come in several forms; Sichin’s annunaki, Bast’s mysterious elders, Atlantis, etc.

The fellow anthropologist/archaeologist/2012 expert John Hoopes has informed me about one of these authors. He is called Frank Joseph and he has published a couple of books on Atlantis. One of these is called Atlantis and 2012: The Science of the Lost Civilization and the Prophecies of the Maya. The book is supposed to show that the Maya calendar was brought to them by survivors of Atlantis. He suggests that 2012 could be the beginning of a new ice age.

Who is Frank Joseph? He was earlier known as Frank Collin and was the leader of the National Socialist Party of America. It eventually turned out that his father was a Jew and he had to leave his position. He was arrested while having sex with ten year old boys and spent three years in jail. After that he became the neo-pagan author known as Frank Joseph.

His books are being published by Inner Traditions, Bear & Company who primarily publishes New Age stuff. Other prominent 2012ers published through them are Carl Johan Calleman, John Major Jenkins, and Geoff Stray. I had for sure chosen another publisher had I known that they publish the writings of a former Nazi-leader.

Neo-paganism and fascism are sometimes connected as in the case of Frank Collin/Joseph. In this mixture of ideas shamanism also shows up. However, shamanism as a concept was invented by Mircea Eliade as an umbrella term for a great diversity of beliefs. Eliade’s fascist, anti-Semitic and anti-democratic connections are well known. This obviously affected his writings. Joseph Frank (not to be confused with Frank Joseph above!) has this to say about Eliade’s postwar writings:

Nothing blatantly anti-Semitic can be found in Eliade’s postwar writings, but the prejudice is transposed into a much more scholarly key in his theory of religion. One of the cornerstones of his doctrine was that archaic man lived in a world of cyclical time, whose recurrences were marked by festivals of one kind or another in which “sacred time,” the time of religious experience, was re-created. The modern world has largely lost this ability to relive “sacred time” because the Hebrews (as Eliade now calls them) broke with the cyclical time of “the eternal return” by linking God with linear time. “The Hebrews,” he writes, “were the first to discover the significance of history as the epiphany of God,” and this discovery of history ultimately led to all the ills of the modern world. Daniel Dubuisson, a French analyst of Eliade’s views on mythology, concludes that this summary notion of history “especially invents a new accusation against the Jews, that of an ontological crime, a capital crime and without doubt unpardonable.” Eliade thus remained true to himself in this erudite disguise during his later years, when his worldwide fame reached its apogee and his death was mourned with sanctimonious reverence.

This is interesting when we see the supposed end date of the Maya Long Count in light of Eliade’s distinction between cyclical/archaic time and linear/”modern” time. The Maya calendar is by some 2012ers believed to be cyclical. These people argue for “world ages” and the rejuvenation of the world at the end of this year. Those who believe the calendar end at the end of the year, they also believe in something similar to a Christian apocalypse.

In the first example, we find John Major Jenkins who was greatly inspired by Freidel, Schele and Parker’s Maya Cosmos, which had Eliade as one of the major sources of inspiration. Contemporary Maya epigraphy has to a great extent moved away from Schele’s shamanistic kings but shamanism is still a major source of inspiration for Maya cave studies since it focuses on the cosmological aspects of caves.

Fascist and anti-democratic ideas have infiltrated the 2012 phenomenon from the beginning. Hence, those naïve Swedish New Agers that I interacted with a while ago, who believe the Maya calendar is all about them and love, peace and understanding, showed their own “microfascist” tendencies when they eventually blocked me from their facebook page. Macrofascism in the making…