考古天文学与玛雅回顾

IF 1.2 0 ARCHAEOLOGY Bulletin of the History of Archaeology Pub Date : 2015-05-15 DOI:10.5334/BHA.253
Alexander Parmington
{"title":"考古天文学与玛雅回顾","authors":"Alexander Parmington","doi":"10.5334/BHA.253","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"enced by a range of factors; principally, a mix of social, economic, environmental, engineering, historical, and ideational determinants (Ashmore and Sabloff 2002: 202). Of ongoing concern in Maya studies, therefore, is establishing the weight that each factor has had on the ordering of buildings and associated architectural features. The book “Archaeoastronomy and the Maya” demonstrates, via a collection of papers, the influence that astronomical surveillance had on the ordering of ancient Maya architecture and, more broadly, its use to posit the world experienced by the ancient Maya within a broader cosmological framework. The introduction, by Gerardo Aldana y Villalobos, provides a nice summary of the history and growth of Archaeoastronomy in the field of Mesoamerican studies, detailing, in brief, the development of the field by lead protagonists from its inception in the late 19th Century through to its formulation as an important mainstream pursuit in Maya research. In Chapter 1, Harold Green applies direct observation to explore the possible origins of Maya calendrics at Chocolá in Guatemala during the Preclassic period; specifically, the source of the Tzolk’in 260 Day Count, 365 Day Haab’ and its associated 5 day Wayeb’. Interestingly, Green argues for the importance of Chocolá in the formulation of the Maya calendrical system and its association with tracking the movement of the sun along the eastern horizon at a specific latitude. Like neighbouring Izapa, Green proposes that the intent in the placement of the site of Chocolá was to observe the intersection of the sun and the horizon and associated topographic features; effectively functioning as a precursor to building complexes such as Group E at Uaxactun, where the structures were configured to observe the position of the rising sun during the equinox and the summer and winter solstices. In Chapter 2, Ivan Sprajc also challenges the genesis of the Mesoamerican calendrics and the course of cultural influence based on the results of an archaeological survey of 11 Maya sites in south-eastern Campeche; a number of which were occupied from the Preclassic period. Sprajc identifies a regional pattern in the alignment of public architecture with ‘sunrise phenomena’ that divides the year into intervals of 260 days and 105 days, which Sprajc proposes may have had significance for the timing of agricultural cycles among the Maya. The early nature of these building alignments in Campeche, in effect supports Sprajc proposal that the “17o-family of orientations” (Aveni 2001: 234), as they appear in the Maya region, predate that of Central Mexico where they are generally believed to have originated, “allowing the use of a complex observational calendar” (Sprajc p52). Celestial observation resulted in the construction of buildings, and building groups, that were designed to mark the position of the rising sun during specific times of the year. While it is generally acknowledged that celestial and solar observation influenced the distribution and orientation of Maya architecture, in Chapter 3 Mendez et al seeks to demonstrate, by example, the intent of the ancient Maya builder; specifically, to reveal the Cross Group at Palenque as an apparatus to observe the various cycles of solar, lunar and planetary phenomena. With special focus on the Temple of the Sun, Mendez and others argue that the interaction of light with architectural features of the group, as well as the break in symmetry inside of the Temple of the Sun, supports the proposition that these structures were precisely configured to receive sunlight, within the temple interior, during events such as the summer solstice, the equinox, and the zenith and nadir passage of the sun. These direct observations, by the authors themselves, effectively support the view that astronomical observation was an important objective in the design and ordering of architectural features of the Cross Group during the reign of K’inch Kan B’ahlam (AD 684–702). In Chapter 4, the Dresden Codex Venus Table is the focus of investigation. In this article, Gerardo Aldana y Villalobos seeks to understand the mind of the Maya astronomer and explore the function of the codex as something beyond a series of computations on cycles of Venus; but rather, as a instrument for the production of omens as suggested in the reminder of the document. For Villalobos, understanding the Venus Table as an * Research Associate (Hon.), Archaeology Program, La Trobe University, Bundoora, Vic, AU alexanderparmington@hotmail.com BOOK REVIEW","PeriodicalId":41664,"journal":{"name":"Bulletin of the History of Archaeology","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.2000,"publicationDate":"2015-05-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.5334/BHA.253","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"A Review of Archaeoastronomy and the Maya\",\"authors\":\"Alexander Parmington\",\"doi\":\"10.5334/BHA.253\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"enced by a range of factors; principally, a mix of social, economic, environmental, engineering, historical, and ideational determinants (Ashmore and Sabloff 2002: 202). Of ongoing concern in Maya studies, therefore, is establishing the weight that each factor has had on the ordering of buildings and associated architectural features. The book “Archaeoastronomy and the Maya” demonstrates, via a collection of papers, the influence that astronomical surveillance had on the ordering of ancient Maya architecture and, more broadly, its use to posit the world experienced by the ancient Maya within a broader cosmological framework. The introduction, by Gerardo Aldana y Villalobos, provides a nice summary of the history and growth of Archaeoastronomy in the field of Mesoamerican studies, detailing, in brief, the development of the field by lead protagonists from its inception in the late 19th Century through to its formulation as an important mainstream pursuit in Maya research. In Chapter 1, Harold Green applies direct observation to explore the possible origins of Maya calendrics at Chocolá in Guatemala during the Preclassic period; specifically, the source of the Tzolk’in 260 Day Count, 365 Day Haab’ and its associated 5 day Wayeb’. Interestingly, Green argues for the importance of Chocolá in the formulation of the Maya calendrical system and its association with tracking the movement of the sun along the eastern horizon at a specific latitude. Like neighbouring Izapa, Green proposes that the intent in the placement of the site of Chocolá was to observe the intersection of the sun and the horizon and associated topographic features; effectively functioning as a precursor to building complexes such as Group E at Uaxactun, where the structures were configured to observe the position of the rising sun during the equinox and the summer and winter solstices. In Chapter 2, Ivan Sprajc also challenges the genesis of the Mesoamerican calendrics and the course of cultural influence based on the results of an archaeological survey of 11 Maya sites in south-eastern Campeche; a number of which were occupied from the Preclassic period. Sprajc identifies a regional pattern in the alignment of public architecture with ‘sunrise phenomena’ that divides the year into intervals of 260 days and 105 days, which Sprajc proposes may have had significance for the timing of agricultural cycles among the Maya. The early nature of these building alignments in Campeche, in effect supports Sprajc proposal that the “17o-family of orientations” (Aveni 2001: 234), as they appear in the Maya region, predate that of Central Mexico where they are generally believed to have originated, “allowing the use of a complex observational calendar” (Sprajc p52). Celestial observation resulted in the construction of buildings, and building groups, that were designed to mark the position of the rising sun during specific times of the year. While it is generally acknowledged that celestial and solar observation influenced the distribution and orientation of Maya architecture, in Chapter 3 Mendez et al seeks to demonstrate, by example, the intent of the ancient Maya builder; specifically, to reveal the Cross Group at Palenque as an apparatus to observe the various cycles of solar, lunar and planetary phenomena. With special focus on the Temple of the Sun, Mendez and others argue that the interaction of light with architectural features of the group, as well as the break in symmetry inside of the Temple of the Sun, supports the proposition that these structures were precisely configured to receive sunlight, within the temple interior, during events such as the summer solstice, the equinox, and the zenith and nadir passage of the sun. These direct observations, by the authors themselves, effectively support the view that astronomical observation was an important objective in the design and ordering of architectural features of the Cross Group during the reign of K’inch Kan B’ahlam (AD 684–702). In Chapter 4, the Dresden Codex Venus Table is the focus of investigation. In this article, Gerardo Aldana y Villalobos seeks to understand the mind of the Maya astronomer and explore the function of the codex as something beyond a series of computations on cycles of Venus; but rather, as a instrument for the production of omens as suggested in the reminder of the document. For Villalobos, understanding the Venus Table as an * Research Associate (Hon.), Archaeology Program, La Trobe University, Bundoora, Vic, AU alexanderparmington@hotmail.com BOOK REVIEW\",\"PeriodicalId\":41664,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Bulletin of the History of Archaeology\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.2000,\"publicationDate\":\"2015-05-15\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.5334/BHA.253\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Bulletin of the History of Archaeology\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.5334/BHA.253\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"0\",\"JCRName\":\"ARCHAEOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Bulletin of the History of Archaeology","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.5334/BHA.253","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"0","JCRName":"ARCHAEOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

受一系列因素影响的;主要是社会、经济、环境、工程、历史和观念决定因素的混合(Ashmore and Sabloff 2002: 202)。因此,玛雅研究中持续关注的是确定每个因素对建筑物排序和相关建筑特征的权重。《考古天文学与玛雅人》一书通过一系列论文展示了天文观测对古玛雅建筑秩序的影响,更广泛地说,它将古玛雅人所经历的世界置于更广阔的宇宙框架中。由Gerardo Aldana y Villalobos撰写的引言,对考古天文学在中美洲研究领域的历史和发展提供了一个很好的总结,简要地详细介绍了该领域的主要人物从19世纪末开始的发展,直到它成为玛雅研究的重要主流追求。在第一章中,Harold Green运用直接观察来探索玛雅历法在前古典时期在危地马拉的巧克力的可能起源;具体来说,它是《260天历法》、《365天历法》和《5天历法》的来源。有趣的是,格林认为巧克力在玛雅历法体系的形成中的重要性,以及它与追踪太阳在特定纬度沿东方地平线运动的联系。与邻近的伊扎帕一样,格林提出,选址巧克力的目的是观察太阳与地平线的交点以及相关的地形特征;有效地作为建筑综合体的前身,如Uaxactun的E组,在那里的结构被配置为在春分和夏至和冬至期间观察太阳升起的位置。在第二章中,Ivan Sprajc还根据对坎佩切东南部11个玛雅遗址的考古调查结果,对中美洲历法的起源和文化影响的过程提出了质疑;其中一些是前古典时期的。Sprajc确定了公共建筑与“日出现象”相一致的区域模式,将一年分为260天和105天,Sprajc认为这可能对玛雅人农业周期的时间有重要意义。坎佩切的这些建筑排列的早期性质,实际上支持了Sprajc的提议,即“170家族的方向”(Aveni 2001: 234),因为它们出现在玛雅地区,早于人们普遍认为它们起源于墨西哥中部,“允许使用复杂的观测日历”(Sprajc p52)。天文观测导致了建筑和建筑群的建造,这些建筑和建筑群的设计是为了在一年中的特定时间标记太阳升起的位置。虽然人们普遍认为天体和太阳观测影响了玛雅建筑的分布和方向,但在第3章中,Mendez等人试图通过例子来证明古代玛雅建筑者的意图;具体来说,揭示帕伦克的克罗斯小组作为观测太阳、月球和行星现象的各种周期的仪器。门德斯和其他人特别关注太阳神庙,他们认为,光与建筑群建筑特征的相互作用,以及太阳神庙内部对称性的破坏,支持了这样一个主张,即这些结构是精确配置的,以便在夏至、春分、太阳经过的天顶和谷底等事件期间在神庙内部接收阳光。这些作者自己的直接观察,有效地支持了这样一种观点,即在K 'inch Kan B 'ahlam统治时期(公元684-702年),天文观测是十字群建筑特征设计和排序的重要目标。第四章以德累斯顿古抄本维纳斯表为研究重点。在这篇文章中,Gerardo Aldana y Villalobos试图理解玛雅天文学家的思想,并探索抄本的功能,超越了金星周期的一系列计算;而是作为一种产生预兆的工具正如在文件的提示中所暗示的那样。对于Villalobos,作为*研究助理(荣誉),了解金星表,拉筹伯大学考古项目,维多利亚州邦多拉,澳大利亚alexanderparmington@hotmail.com书评
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
A Review of Archaeoastronomy and the Maya
enced by a range of factors; principally, a mix of social, economic, environmental, engineering, historical, and ideational determinants (Ashmore and Sabloff 2002: 202). Of ongoing concern in Maya studies, therefore, is establishing the weight that each factor has had on the ordering of buildings and associated architectural features. The book “Archaeoastronomy and the Maya” demonstrates, via a collection of papers, the influence that astronomical surveillance had on the ordering of ancient Maya architecture and, more broadly, its use to posit the world experienced by the ancient Maya within a broader cosmological framework. The introduction, by Gerardo Aldana y Villalobos, provides a nice summary of the history and growth of Archaeoastronomy in the field of Mesoamerican studies, detailing, in brief, the development of the field by lead protagonists from its inception in the late 19th Century through to its formulation as an important mainstream pursuit in Maya research. In Chapter 1, Harold Green applies direct observation to explore the possible origins of Maya calendrics at Chocolá in Guatemala during the Preclassic period; specifically, the source of the Tzolk’in 260 Day Count, 365 Day Haab’ and its associated 5 day Wayeb’. Interestingly, Green argues for the importance of Chocolá in the formulation of the Maya calendrical system and its association with tracking the movement of the sun along the eastern horizon at a specific latitude. Like neighbouring Izapa, Green proposes that the intent in the placement of the site of Chocolá was to observe the intersection of the sun and the horizon and associated topographic features; effectively functioning as a precursor to building complexes such as Group E at Uaxactun, where the structures were configured to observe the position of the rising sun during the equinox and the summer and winter solstices. In Chapter 2, Ivan Sprajc also challenges the genesis of the Mesoamerican calendrics and the course of cultural influence based on the results of an archaeological survey of 11 Maya sites in south-eastern Campeche; a number of which were occupied from the Preclassic period. Sprajc identifies a regional pattern in the alignment of public architecture with ‘sunrise phenomena’ that divides the year into intervals of 260 days and 105 days, which Sprajc proposes may have had significance for the timing of agricultural cycles among the Maya. The early nature of these building alignments in Campeche, in effect supports Sprajc proposal that the “17o-family of orientations” (Aveni 2001: 234), as they appear in the Maya region, predate that of Central Mexico where they are generally believed to have originated, “allowing the use of a complex observational calendar” (Sprajc p52). Celestial observation resulted in the construction of buildings, and building groups, that were designed to mark the position of the rising sun during specific times of the year. While it is generally acknowledged that celestial and solar observation influenced the distribution and orientation of Maya architecture, in Chapter 3 Mendez et al seeks to demonstrate, by example, the intent of the ancient Maya builder; specifically, to reveal the Cross Group at Palenque as an apparatus to observe the various cycles of solar, lunar and planetary phenomena. With special focus on the Temple of the Sun, Mendez and others argue that the interaction of light with architectural features of the group, as well as the break in symmetry inside of the Temple of the Sun, supports the proposition that these structures were precisely configured to receive sunlight, within the temple interior, during events such as the summer solstice, the equinox, and the zenith and nadir passage of the sun. These direct observations, by the authors themselves, effectively support the view that astronomical observation was an important objective in the design and ordering of architectural features of the Cross Group during the reign of K’inch Kan B’ahlam (AD 684–702). In Chapter 4, the Dresden Codex Venus Table is the focus of investigation. In this article, Gerardo Aldana y Villalobos seeks to understand the mind of the Maya astronomer and explore the function of the codex as something beyond a series of computations on cycles of Venus; but rather, as a instrument for the production of omens as suggested in the reminder of the document. For Villalobos, understanding the Venus Table as an * Research Associate (Hon.), Archaeology Program, La Trobe University, Bundoora, Vic, AU alexanderparmington@hotmail.com BOOK REVIEW
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
1.60
自引率
0.00%
发文量
2
审稿时长
11 weeks
期刊最新文献
‘Archaeology is but Ethnology in the past tense’. Theoretical Proofs and Intellectual Technologies in André Leroi-Gourhan’s Archived Archéologie du Pacifique-Nord, 1946 Mr Miles, Mr Oldfield and Professor Huxley: Early Thoughts on the Origins of the Australians Rewriting the Past for the Changing Present: The Need for New and Pluriversal Histories of Archaeology Smuggling Cuneiform Tablets in Aniseed Bags: Profile of a Sale Made by Elias Gejou to the British Museum in 1896 Christian Archaeology in Malta between the Nineteenth and Twentieth Centuries from Two Unknown Letters
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1