David Lubman Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> bernard Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > One more time , briefly. The quetzal bird's
> > habitat is in the highlands, not is the sea
> level
> > Yucatan.
>
> We agree that the quetzal's habitat is in the
> highlands. Central Mexico, including Teotihuacán,
> was NOT quetzal habitat. The "Mexican invaders"
> (from the central valley of Mexico) did NOT live
> in quetzal habitat.

Some general remarks about methodology; One problem I find with this and other attempts to gather evidence to support the existence a modern interpretation or hypothesis in ancient Mesoamerican cultures is a disregard for synchronic dates. One of my big areas of research are attempts to claim an African origin for the Olmecs (but similar claims for a Polynesian, Indonesian, Roman etc. origin of Mesoamerican civilization do the same thing) which disregard the relevant dates. Secondly, claims about the existence or antiquity of any particular cultural trait, or belief in ancient societies on the basis of either some contemporary claim by site guides, modern ethnic residents of the area, or interpretations of iconography or images based on European or modern ideas. What is needed, is evidence from the relevant period as interpreted by qualified scholars. Let me give you an example, in the beginning of the 20th century the Mexican government decided to get translations of some 16th century Nahuatl manuscripts. They thought that the easiest way to do this was to get some native speakers of Nahuatl to do the translation, but this a total failure. They eventually were translated successfully by scholars, who learned Nahuatl but also were fully acquainted with Aztec culture because the manuscripts were full of allegorical language which could only be understood knowing Aztec religion and culture. The modern native speakers, knew the language but not all the other parts, This is why, whatever modern Maya may say, has to be supported by data from Classical Maya sources if claims are to be made about the existence of something-- much less the intentions behind it.

>
> The highland Maya of southern Mexico and Guatemala
> have lived in quetzal habitat for 4000 years or
> more. A more recent date is suggested for the
> mysterious Teotihuicanis of the Central Valley,
> maybe around 400 BCE. But I do realize their was
> much cultural exchange between these sister
> cultures.

There was no Teotihuacan at 400 BC. An article by John Lohse in Latin American Antiquity 2010 gives a date for the transition from preceramic to village life for the Lowland Maya at about 1000-900 BC and the Highland Maya might have been a little earlier, but evidence is scanty.


> ------------------------------
>
> >The god Quetzalcoatl is an import from
> > Central Mexico in the Post-Classic and the
> name
> > "Kukulkan" is a translation of Quetzalcoatl,
> which
> > in Mexico means "plumed serpent" NOT
> "quetzal
> > serpent" . And the same applies to the Maya
> area.
>
> Was kukulkan truly imposed on the Maya?

Yes it was. When we look at the difference between late Chichen Itza (i.e. the second Toltec influenced buildings in the Post-Classic period) we see a huge difference from Classic Maya cities like Palenque, Copan, Tikal, or the highland Kaminaljuyu, for example. It is clear that Tula in Central Mexico is being copied: tzomplantlis (stone skull racks), coatepantli (serpent walls) and certainly repeated images of plumed serpents in columns and in high relief on walls.
We also have Maya literature speaking of "invasions by Central Mexican who imposed aspects of their culture"

Their
> myths involve quetzals from ancient times to the
> present. Kukulkan" is a Mayan word. I believe
> "Quetzal" is a Mexican or Aztec word.

No. Quetzal is the Spanish version of the nahuatl word "quetzalli". If you look for the definition of the word in the standard dictionary Remi Simeon Dictionnaire de la langue Nahuatl ou Mexicane or the Spanish translation you find: (p. 380) "long beautiful green feather; and figuratively treasure, jewel, father, mother, lord, chief, protector, beloved son”. . . .
Thus, the main meaning of the word quetzalli in many applications has to do with “precious, high quality etc. Look at any number of words in the dictionary with this root.
>
> An example from the Dresden Codex is a drawing of
> the "Sovereign Plumed Serpent" in Dennis Tedlock's
> Revised translation of the Popol Vuh, the
> celebrated Maya creation myth. That suggests the
> Maya myth may have greater antiquity.
>
> The drawing, depicting a god, identifiable as
> Kukulkan, is captioned:
>
> "Here he is seated, holding a snake in his hand.
> On his back he wears a quetzal bird, with its head
> behind his, its wings at the level of his
> shoulders, and its tail hanging down to the
> ground."

Things are more complicated than this simple description. 1) The Dresden Codex is Post-Classic not Classic and the Popol Vuh was probably written in the 1550’s 2) The god is identified as Sovereign Plumed Serpent ‘q’ukumatz the Quiche Maya name of Kukulkan in Yucatec. 3) More importantly, we know that Mesoamerican Gods were often identified by what they wore, what their adornment, or their face paint was. Often you get just a characteristic piece to represent the whole god, something called “par pro toto.” This is relevant because the whole quetzal bird you see in the Dresden illustration may just be an idiosyncratic way of depicting this god. Another image for example is the image is Fig. 8 of Vol 1 of Allen Christenson’s Popol Vuh translation. The image taken from a clearly Classical vessel is a big serpent wrapped in feathers.

More importantly, read Tedlock’s comments on the name (I have the first edition p 216 referring to p. 63 of the translation) “Here and elsewhere, the title tepeu or “Sovereign” serves to distinguish the god named Plumed Serpent, who bears it nearly every time he is mentioned from the Quiche king named Plumed Serpent, who never bears it. Tepew is from a Nahuatl source: tepeuani is “conqueror or victor in battle” in nahuatl proper (AM]. Quiche tepewal. and adjectival form (marked by –al) is glossed by DB as “majesty, dignity.” The name rendered as Plumed Serpent is q’ukumatz 4ucumatz. in which q’- is from q’uq’, which refers to the resplendent quetzal [Pharomachus mocinno] when used as a bird name but extends to precious feathers in general when it modifies other words, and kumatz a generic name for snakes.”

The point here is that the term may not be referring to the quetzal bird specifically but rather to the metaphoric sense that the being is precious and important—as in the Nahuatl dictionary meaning is described above. This is supported by Ted lock in the bottom of the paragraph “it is the sense of value and splendor adhering to the quetzal and its feathers that has led to the standards English translations followed here, using ”plumed” instead of the more ordinary “feathered” and than, as if that were not quite strong enough, using “serpent” instead of ”snake.”

>
> A drawing by Karl Taube is The relationship, if
> any, with feathered fire serpents, is a matter of
> interest to scholars.
>
> Moreover, the highland Maya traded on quetzal
> feathers. Much of it was with Teotihuacan.

Assertion not evidence.

> Itinerant vendors called pochtecas (merchants who
> lead) were prominent in Maya trade areas.

See Brasswell, G. 2003 “Understanding Early Classic Interaction between Kaminaljuyu and Central Mexico,” In G. Brasswell, ed. The Maya and Teotihuacan105-142 Austin: University of Texas Press for a review of this matter.

Brasswell (p. 111) agrees with me that the time gap between Teotihuacan and Tenochtitlan is much too large to make an analogy between the Aztec pochteca and anything in Teotihuacan.

They
> were also missionaries of sort, promoting the cult
> of Kukulkan. This is more evidence that the
> quetzal's cultural influence flowed from Maya to
> central Mexicans rather than the reverse.

No. Where is this evidence? Brasswell points out that 1) evidence for any Teotihuacan influence in Kaminaljuyu is pretty late (Esperanza phase AD 450-650) 2) very sparse and modified from straight Teotihuacan (some Talud/tablero architecture in Mounds A and B and some mortuary effects) 3) isotope analysis does not show Teotihuacan native born skeletons. 4) most probable trade is through Copan and Tikal not directly with Teotihuacan and modified there.

With respect to pushing a particular god, Brasswell points out that Schele and Matthews 1998 The Code of Kings and Taube 2000 “The Turquoise hearth: Fire, Self-Sacrifice, and the Central Mexican Cult of War,” In D. Carrasco, L. Jones and S. Sessions, eds. Mesoamerica’s Classic Heritage. From Teotihuacan to the Aztecs pp. 269-340 Boulder: University Press of Colorado, among others, propose that Kaminaljuyu participated in a pan-Mesoamerican cult involving- not a quetzal but a war Serpent.

“(p. 139)One more conjecture that may be added to the long list of narratives concerning Teotihuacan-Kaminaljuyu interaction is that the principal figures in the Esperanza-phase tombs—regardless of their ethnic identity—participated in a pan-Mesoamerican cult. A similar mechanism has been proposed by William Ringle et al (1998) to explain cultural similarities across Mesoamerica during the epi-Classic/Terminal Classic Period. Local manifestations of such cult could have differed from site to site. At kaminaljuyu, it was expressed most dramatically and elaborately in syncretistic mortuary rites that employed objects and symbols from central Mexico within the context of highland Maya funerary practices.
At many sites this propose cult focused on warfare, Venus, the Bearded Dragon/War Serpent and the goggle-eyed storm god. Perhaps the Late and Terminal Classic Maya Vision Serpent, which was sometimes conjured from a mirror, is related to the War Serpent imagery of both Early Classic Teotihuacan and many lowland Maya sites (see Schele and Matthews 1998: 22; Taube 2002b). Both the storm god K’awiil and his Post Classic highland avatar Toil were tied to ruler ship. One may hazard, therefore, that the conjectural Early Classic cult of Quetzalcoatl imbued its warrior priests with the mana of rulership. The Epiclassic/Terminal Classic cult of Quetzalcoatl posited by Ringle et al (1998) may have been a revival of this earlier cult.” [BOM Ringle, et al. 1998 “The Return of Quetzalcoatl: Evidence for the Spread of a World Religion during the Epiclassic Period,” Ancient Mesoamerica 9: 183-232].

BOM The hypothesis of the Teotihuacan Serpent becoming the Vision Serpent is very interesting because there are many examples of the Vision Serpent in Classic Maya iconography—for example the lintels in Yaxchilan.

>
> Here's a more recent example from Guatemala City
> depicting the History of the Maya in a series of
> relief-carved panels. It depicts Tekun Uman,
> terminal king of the K'iche' (Quiché) Maya
> people. He is riding to battle against the Spanish
> conquistador Don Pedro de Alvarado. A quetzal
> accompanies him into battle. (I see the quetzal as
> a symbol of the Maya spirit.)
>
> Soon,Tekun Uman is slain by the conquistador. As
> the king dies, and with him, the quetzal falls
> dead on Tekun Uman's body, its chest stained
> permanently red by Tekun Uman's blood.

Colonial not Classic Maya, who provided the interpretation?

>
> The cultural importance of the quetzal is shown in
> place names in Maya areas. Guatemala, still
> heavily Maya, names its currency the "quetzal".
> It shows a quetzal flying across the top of its
> paper currency, its long tail undulating like a
> serpent.

Not relevant to the antiquity.
>
> This evidence of the quetzal had greater cultural
> importance to the Maya than to the invaders. It
> seems counterintuitive that Mexican invaders
> forced the Mayan word Kukulkan onto the Maya, and
> that as a direct translation of the central
> Mexican god named "Quetzalcoatl"

Your assumption and circular reasoning since it assumes what needs to be prove i.e. that the quetzal had greater cultural importance to the Maya than to the Central Mexicans.

>
> Can you usefully comment on this?

None of this provides evidence that the Maya had intentionally built to produce a quetzal chirp [that apparently is not universally recognized as such when heard] instead of accidentally producing some sound.

I have spent a good deal of time on this, an area of little interest to me. I have enough problems dealing with hyper diffusion claims and do not want to become a Maya expert to deal with this. My last contribution to the topic.
>
>
>
>