Click to set custom HTML
|
A Partial Translation of the "2012" Comalcalco Brick by Neil Steede © 2012 Neil Steede Editor: David Brown Photography and Illustrations: Neil Steede |
|
Introduction
This on-going translation has to do with one of the inscribed bricks from the Maya site known as Comalcalco. The inscription is found on brick t1-452. That inscription appears to be cryptic from several stand points. Not only are there Mayan hieroglyphs, but there exists other formats which suggest the presence of cryptograms in numerology, foreign scripts, spacing and arrangement as well as in the unrecognized script of the second column. Until more information is available concerning several of the scripts and/or thought processes behind those scripts, a full translation is not possible. However, with all of the above said, it appears as though the author of this inscription is making reference to a “second coming” by some entity. While some would argue that the entity is Balamm Yokie (also called: “bolom yotie”), I personally favor that reference is being made to Jesus.
Site Description
The ancient Mayan city of Comalcalco is nestled in one of the lowest laying areas of Central America, just six feet above sea level and twenty miles inland from the Gulf of Mexico in the state of Tabasco, Mexico. This modern-day commerce of this swampland area is chiefly supported by Cacao (chocolate) plantations. The modern-day city of Comalcalco is named after the ancient Mayan ruins found in the immediate area.
Pre-Classical Ancient Site History
It is known that a more ancient civilization of Olmec had originally built the site known of today as Comalcalco. This Olmec settlement was peripheral to the Olmec culture and as far as we can tell it never achieved a position of significance during the period dating 2,000 BCE to 400 BCE when that culture was in existence. During this long era the site was home to a few farmers because it then constituted one of the best agricultural plots available in the immediate area. This was largely due to Comalcalco’s slightly higher elevation over the immediate surrounding areas which allowed for it to be considerably drier than the surrounding swamps. After the decline of the Olmec, Comalcalco was in essence abandoned for centuries.
Pre-Classical Ancient Site History
It is known that a more ancient civilization of Olmec had originally built the site known of today as Comalcalco. This Olmec settlement was peripheral to the Olmec culture and as far as we can tell it never achieved a position of significance during the period dating 2,000 BCE to 400 BCE when that culture was in existence. During this long era the site was home to a few farmers because it then constituted one of the best agricultural plots available in the immediate area. This was largely due to Comalcalco’s slightly higher elevation over the immediate surrounding areas which allowed for it to be considerably drier than the surrounding swamps. After the decline of the Olmec, Comalcalco was in essence abandoned for centuries.
Classical Ancient Site History
During the Classical Mayan era Comalcalco experienced an explosion of growth when an estimated 25,000 people suddenly moved into the area. It was during this time period that most of Comalcalco’s present-day structures were built and many technological innovations were realized at this site—innovations that would sweep the Maya culture into its highest forms in the Classical period. It was also during this time that most of the thousands of inscribed bricks at Comalcalco were fired and mortared within the walls of the structures.
Post-Classical Site History
During the Post-Classical era Comalcalco became one of the consiques of power in the area. They controlled much of the north-south trade and were not only controlling overland trade routes, but they were also considered to be a central naval hub. Comalcalco’s connection to the sea was by way of a now stagnant river known as the Rio Seco.
Slave trade was a part of the commerce available in Comalcalco. In Colonial times, one of the slaves that had been traded northward later became Cortez’s mistress. Her name was Malinche. After the conquest of Central Mexico, Malinche led Cortez to the port of Comalcalco to begin his conquest of the Maya.
Slave trade was a part of the commerce available in Comalcalco. In Colonial times, one of the slaves that had been traded northward later became Cortez’s mistress. Her name was Malinche. After the conquest of Central Mexico, Malinche led Cortez to the port of Comalcalco to begin his conquest of the Maya.
Colonial to 1700s
Though there seem to be no records immediately available for this time period, it is known that Comalcalco continued to serve as a port in the centuries after Cortez. In fact, until the mid-twentieth century three tall masts could be seen emerging from the present-day muck of the Rio Seco. This now stagnated that ancient gulf connection runs through the present-day city of Comalcalco. Those masts have now disappeared, though no known excavation of the ship ever took place. It would be most interesting to relocate that ship’s site and explore it.
Modern Excavations
The first known archaeological exploration at Comalcalco took place in the mid-1800s by Desire Charney. By the 1920s Franz Blom of Tulane University in New Orleans had excavated at the site and reported on those excavations in a publication called Tribes and Temples, 1925.
Later in the mid-1940s Gordon Ekholm of the Museum of Natural History of New York excavated at the site, but he provided no publication on his findings before his death.
Further excavations at Comalcalco were executed by Pina Chan and Archaeologist Salazar to bring one up to the 1980s. Mario Perez-Compa then excavated in 1983 thru 1986 but all of these archaeologists died without all of their notes being fully published. Throughout the last twenty years Guillermo Morales has headed the excavations at Comalcalco.
My personal involvement at Comalcalco took place in the early 1980s under Archaeologist Salazar. I began to create a photographic record of the inscribed Comalcalco bricks. That study continues to date, though a book entitled The Preliminary Catalogue of the Comalcalco Bricks was published in 1984.
Later in the mid-1940s Gordon Ekholm of the Museum of Natural History of New York excavated at the site, but he provided no publication on his findings before his death.
Further excavations at Comalcalco were executed by Pina Chan and Archaeologist Salazar to bring one up to the 1980s. Mario Perez-Compa then excavated in 1983 thru 1986 but all of these archaeologists died without all of their notes being fully published. Throughout the last twenty years Guillermo Morales has headed the excavations at Comalcalco.
My personal involvement at Comalcalco took place in the early 1980s under Archaeologist Salazar. I began to create a photographic record of the inscribed Comalcalco bricks. That study continues to date, though a book entitled The Preliminary Catalogue of the Comalcalco Bricks was published in 1984.
Brick History
Exactly who excavated this brick is in question. It was most likely found by Archaeologist Salazar in his 1970s excavations. We do know that it was found somewhere in the Pyramid of Comalcalco early in Salazar’s exploration of that monument. While his notes are not impeccable, they do imply that this brick was found on the upper east face of the Pyramid. It is supposed that some indication of its original location can be extrapolated from the brick’s archival identification number which is T1-452. “T1” refers to Temple 1; the pyramid itself. “452” gives reference to the ordinal number in which it was found. That is to say, 491 inscribed bricks were found before it. Because Salazar had concentrated his excavation efforts around the flat-topped tomb located on the eastern face of that pyramid, it can be supposed that this brick was found in close association with that tomb or the temple above it on the apex of the pyramid. Since its discovery, brick T1-452 has been warehoused at the site and is still there today.
Brick DefinitionThe term “brick” needs clarification. There are those who completely object to the term “brick” when reference is made to Comalcalco. This is usually because the common perception of a brick does not fit at Comalcalco. The average Comalcalco brick is approximately 10” x 20” and only 1” to 2” thick, therefore they are more commonly viewed by modern Mesoamerican Archaeologists as tablets. This argument is not totally erroneous since many of the known Comalcalco bricks do have inscriptions on the larger flat surfaces. The presence of inscriptions on these tablets tends to place them more in the category of tablets as opposed to bricks. However, it has been estimated that of the hundreds of thousands of bricks found at Comalcalco less than 3% of them have inscriptions. By far and large, the vast majority of these fired clay tablets were used strictly for their utilitarian purpose as construction material.
Most Mesoamerican Archaeologists are not trained in Old World archaeology and therefore lose out on the ability to see the unmistakable resemblances between the type of construction found at Comalcalco and that found in Roman construction of the same period. The bricks used in Roman construction were 12” x 12” x 2” slabs of fired clay. Because the Comalcalco bricks are largely used for edifice construction as they had be used in Rome, the term brick seems to be the better term to use. Therefore, the term brick will continue to be used by this author since that is the function these items fulfill, in spite of attempts to view them differently. |
|
Brick Inscriptions
There are thousands of inscribed Comalcalco bricks. New ones are constantly being found so that an exact count is not available. Over the years many inscribed bricks have been misplaced or lost. Today, more than 2,000 are located in at least five different warehouses and four different museums worldwide.
The content and intended purpose of the Comalcalco brick inscriptions are enigmatic and therefore merit discussion. All but three of the bricks were located within the walls of Comalcalco structures. That is to say, apparently the surface inscriptions were never intended to be seen. Inscribed bricks had their inscriptions mortared over and were utilized as every other brick in the construction. This hiding of the inscriptions has not raised questions that I feel should be considered. There are countless bricks with very advanced art styles and script styles upon which artists spent countless hours executing. Why hide these masterful pieces of art into the walls?
According to most Mesoamerican Archaeologists these bricks were created as a form of offering/sacrifice to the gods for whom the temples at Comalcalco were built. Though the specific terminology sacrifice is not used by most specialists that is the implication. However, there seems to be more here than a simple sacrifice or idle doodling as implied by many archaeologists. The corpus of Comalcalco inscriptions are highly varied and have contents that is imperative to understanding the culture of the people from Comalcalco.
Several aspects of the inscribed bricks are not realized by most. First, the inscribed bricks, while mixed with a large amount of non-inscribed bricks are not just haphazardly located within the walls of Comalcalco. All the inscribed bricks seem to have been classified before being placed within walls and buried under mortar. The illustration below demonstrates how this distribution was made:
It appears that all temples at Comalcalco had inscribed bricks with references to plants or animals located within the lower walls. All bricks that depicted people were located in the upper walls, and all geometrical designs were located in the ceilings of the temples. Therefore, the location of the inscribed bricks was meaningful. As to exactly what that meaningfulness was is difficult to comprehend. However, a similar case can be found in India/Sri Lanka brick edifices of the same time period.
Second, most of the inscribed bricks were not “wetted” before laying mortar upon them. That aspect makes one question the motive of this action. While apparently most of the non-inscribed brick faces were wetted before mortar was applied their mortar adheres more readily to the brick face. But, with inscribed bricks not being wetted before mortar application, then the mortar more readily separates from the inscribed face of the brick. The result is that when a wall collapses it is far more likely to break at the point where the brick was not wetted before mortar was applied. The unavoidable question is, “Was this lack of inscribed brick wetting purposeful?” Possibly not, but one must explore that possibility especially in light of the content of the inscriptions found on these bricks. Of particular interest here is the “2012” brick being discussed.
If the 2012 brick does make reference to this year, then it must be considered to be prophetic in nature. If prophetic, then why hide it inside of a constructed wall? It could simply be that the author of the brick wanted to state his belief in the coming of that date and its importance. We may never be able to answer this question, but the question remains as to that brick’s true significance. Did the author really want to make reference to the 2012 Maya calendar event? At the moment, that question can only be partially answered (see segment on inscription).
The content and intended purpose of the Comalcalco brick inscriptions are enigmatic and therefore merit discussion. All but three of the bricks were located within the walls of Comalcalco structures. That is to say, apparently the surface inscriptions were never intended to be seen. Inscribed bricks had their inscriptions mortared over and were utilized as every other brick in the construction. This hiding of the inscriptions has not raised questions that I feel should be considered. There are countless bricks with very advanced art styles and script styles upon which artists spent countless hours executing. Why hide these masterful pieces of art into the walls?
According to most Mesoamerican Archaeologists these bricks were created as a form of offering/sacrifice to the gods for whom the temples at Comalcalco were built. Though the specific terminology sacrifice is not used by most specialists that is the implication. However, there seems to be more here than a simple sacrifice or idle doodling as implied by many archaeologists. The corpus of Comalcalco inscriptions are highly varied and have contents that is imperative to understanding the culture of the people from Comalcalco.
Several aspects of the inscribed bricks are not realized by most. First, the inscribed bricks, while mixed with a large amount of non-inscribed bricks are not just haphazardly located within the walls of Comalcalco. All the inscribed bricks seem to have been classified before being placed within walls and buried under mortar. The illustration below demonstrates how this distribution was made:
It appears that all temples at Comalcalco had inscribed bricks with references to plants or animals located within the lower walls. All bricks that depicted people were located in the upper walls, and all geometrical designs were located in the ceilings of the temples. Therefore, the location of the inscribed bricks was meaningful. As to exactly what that meaningfulness was is difficult to comprehend. However, a similar case can be found in India/Sri Lanka brick edifices of the same time period.
Second, most of the inscribed bricks were not “wetted” before laying mortar upon them. That aspect makes one question the motive of this action. While apparently most of the non-inscribed brick faces were wetted before mortar was applied their mortar adheres more readily to the brick face. But, with inscribed bricks not being wetted before mortar application, then the mortar more readily separates from the inscribed face of the brick. The result is that when a wall collapses it is far more likely to break at the point where the brick was not wetted before mortar was applied. The unavoidable question is, “Was this lack of inscribed brick wetting purposeful?” Possibly not, but one must explore that possibility especially in light of the content of the inscriptions found on these bricks. Of particular interest here is the “2012” brick being discussed.
If the 2012 brick does make reference to this year, then it must be considered to be prophetic in nature. If prophetic, then why hide it inside of a constructed wall? It could simply be that the author of the brick wanted to state his belief in the coming of that date and its importance. We may never be able to answer this question, but the question remains as to that brick’s true significance. Did the author really want to make reference to the 2012 Maya calendar event? At the moment, that question can only be partially answered (see segment on inscription).
The Translation
Brick T1-452 was originally published in my 1984 catalogue of the Comalcalco bricks. At that time I posed the rhetorical question as to possibility that this brick was bilingual. It is obvious to any observer that the brick contains two columns of text, but that each column is in a different script. None can deny that the left column is in semi-classical Maya hieroglyphs, but the second column to the right has the immediate appearance of simply being nonsensical scribbling. Today, some twenty-five years later, I view this particular brick quite differently for a variety of reasons. The most important of those reasons is the layout of this particular brick. I am convinced that the overall spacing within and around the inscription is just as important as the text itself. There are other factors which are also important to observe. The organizational as well as the numerological patterns convince me that there are cryptograms embedded in this inscription. It is my belief that those cryptograms exist to take the reader beyond the immediate text.
Spacing
It is important to realize that the upper and lower margins from the edge of the brick to the left column are approximately equal. Moreover, the spaces between each of the four hieroglyphs in that column are also equal one to another. This cannot be coincidental or accidental. This spacing demonstrates that the author deliberately planned this design. The right hand column of text also seems to follow the same placing plan.
The right hand column is slightly higher on the brick than the left hand column. While its margins above and below from the edge of the brick are very different from the left column, they still appear to be planned. If one ignores the upper indicator mark running to the right from the upper left hand glyph and over the right column text, then one can see that both columns of text seem to be of equal lengths. Further, the right hand margin to the edge of the brick is for the most part straight. Therefore, the spacing found on this inscription does not appear to be haphazard and is in fact methodical.
The right hand column is slightly higher on the brick than the left hand column. While its margins above and below from the edge of the brick are very different from the left column, they still appear to be planned. If one ignores the upper indicator mark running to the right from the upper left hand glyph and over the right column text, then one can see that both columns of text seem to be of equal lengths. Further, the right hand margin to the edge of the brick is for the most part straight. Therefore, the spacing found on this inscription does not appear to be haphazard and is in fact methodical.
Organizational Patterns
Interestingly, the two columns seem to be inclining toward each other. That is to say that they are connected at the top yet are spaced apart at the bottom. The left column cascades slightly to the left from up to down, while the right column had the appearance of doing the opposite. Why? In my opinion, it is naïve to simply believe that this is coincidence.
NumerologyI believe that the numerology involved on this brick is symbolic in nature. I will begin demonstrating this by reviewing the glyph count. From top to bottom there are four glyphs used in the hieroglyphic text and they are equally spaced within the length of the column. Four is the number associated with Quetzalcoatl and therefore, implies a reference to him. In the right column are also four larger groupings. Because the spacing of the left hieroglyphic text is angled upward toward the right, one may extend that spacing to segment the scribbling column to the right into four groupings as well. Again, the four groups imply Quetzalcoatl. However, looking at the two columns as a combined single unit makes it evidence that eight (four plus four) is a number with which to be concerned. The number eight is associated with the Venus Cult.(1) This numerology strongly implies Quetzalcoatl’s close association with both columns of text. Therefore, one must assume that more then one Mayan god is being associated with the text on this brick. That aspect will be dealt with presently.
|
|
|
Another numerological cryptogram is the curious arrangement of the numbers found preceding the Mayan hieroglyphs on the left column. I believe that the order in which they are presented creates a cryptogram within those numbers. This observation is tentative at best, but the cascading numbers seem to be giving a countdown. Note that the numbers cascade downward from five to one. The two and one (if they could be read this way) are both associated with the fourth hieroglyph in the left column. That glyph might be a name. Particularly, it might be the name of the entity referred to in the preceding glyph.
The last aspect of numerology is the duplicity aspect of the overall text. For a variety of reasons the text on this brick appears to be dualistic. Aside from the double script columns, it should be noted that the columns are only joined at the top. This seems to imply that they have the same subject matter. While the first text (left column) has a past tense statement, the second text (right column) seems to be located to imply an event that has not yet occurred; that is to say, a future event. This duplicity is underlined by the similarity of the two large curved objects found in the second grouping in each column. In particular, the “U” shape just below the left curved object is being used to show that the two events being described are considered to be “holy,” “sacred” or “heavenly” by the author.(2)
|
|
The Hieroglyphic Text
Though the greatest work on reading the hieroglyphic text has been done by Eric Boot(3), other eminent epigraphers such as David Stuart and Marc Zender seem to agree with him in theory. I will not attempt to be as specific as they are for one simple reason: this website is communicating with the general public as opposed to communicating to Maya epigraphers specifically. Therefore, a very general terminology will be employed to make this text palatable for all, especially those who know nothing concerning the Maya calendar.
Just as we presently think of our calendar having natural divisions of centuries (100 years) the Maya calendar divided their calendar into rounds of 52 years. Therefore, the date expressed in this text refers to the end of a Maya calendar cycle of 52 years. Essentially, the text reads: “At the end of the century he/she arrived…”
Now, there have been several researchers who claim this brick is referring to the December 21, 2012 inscription found on Stela 6 from Tortuguero. But, in actuality, as all the above epigraphers have publically stated, no particular century is indicated within the text, and the verb “arrived” is in past tense. Thus, the left column is referring to an event that has already occurred. This left column is not referring to a future date in any way. However, as previously mentioned no one has attempted any sort of reading on the right column which appears to deal with the same subject during a different event.
Just as we presently think of our calendar having natural divisions of centuries (100 years) the Maya calendar divided their calendar into rounds of 52 years. Therefore, the date expressed in this text refers to the end of a Maya calendar cycle of 52 years. Essentially, the text reads: “At the end of the century he/she arrived…”
Now, there have been several researchers who claim this brick is referring to the December 21, 2012 inscription found on Stela 6 from Tortuguero. But, in actuality, as all the above epigraphers have publically stated, no particular century is indicated within the text, and the verb “arrived” is in past tense. Thus, the left column is referring to an event that has already occurred. This left column is not referring to a future date in any way. However, as previously mentioned no one has attempted any sort of reading on the right column which appears to deal with the same subject during a different event.
Identifying He/She
In the Tortuguero inscription the Maya god of creation and war is the entity that is supposed to arrive after December 21, 2012. This entitled name is Balaam Yokie, a little known Maya god. In my opinion Maya epigraphers who believe that the brick inscription may relate to the Stela 6 inscription are correct—the two do relate. But, our brick inscription has much more to say about this entity. To analyze this identification further I must consider several aspects of the brick’s inscriptions. First, I note the third hieroglyph in the left column that states “He/she arrived.” Note that the overall glyph shape is that of a fish swimming to the left. Most epigraphers overlook this aspect, but it is extremely common in Maya texts and iconography(4). This ties in with the Maya god depicted in Temple XIX at Palenque as being a “fisher of men.” The problem with all of this it twofold:
1. It makes several known Maya gods to have the appearance of being one and the same.
2. The implication of the Comalcalco brick inscription is that reference is being made to a first and second coming of this Maya god which sounds extremely Christian.
Yet these two aspects cannot be ignored in this inscription. Moreover, the duplicity aspect seems to be underlined by the Maya two-dot symbol for doubling found just below the left lower corner of that glyph.
Boot has suggested that the fourth Maya hieroglyph in the left column is possibly a name. I believe Boot is correct. Notice that just above the upper left corner of that glyph is also the Maya symbol for doubling (two dots). In this case the doubling seems to be in the correct location, at least correct by epigrapher standards. At the moment this name remains undecipherable, but now I will move to the top of the columns. Here are more identification implications as to whom the “he/she” may be.
To the immediate left of the first hieroglyph in the left column is the first circlet used for date identification in the Maya calendar count. Note that it has a line connecting both the circlet and the hieroglyph. The glyph portrays a face with closed eyes and gaping mouth which is a style often reserved for those who are dead. The line connecting seems to refer to “the One” which has died. This has the appearance of being even more associated with Christianity. Now I will turn to review the identification of the entity in the second column.
From above the first Maya glyph in the left column is a line extending to the right over the second column. Before an identifying determination can be made, the script of this second column must be discussed.
The forms found in this second column are in a script that to date has not been recognized as such and therefore has not yet been named. Because of the nature of the script several aspects of it should be noted. First, it is what I would refer to as a cursive script because all of the symbols used overlap one another in a continuous sequence. Some of these symbols fit known Mayan iconography while others do not. Some of the ones used here are from Eastern Indian origin. That aspect should not surprise epigraphers as it has long been demonstrated that the Lunar Mansions of the Maya calendar came from India(5). It can also be demonstrated that scripts such as Ogam and Arabic do exist in Mayan art(6). Additionally, it seems that many Mayan epigraphers ignore David Kelley’s analysis of the San Bartolo Murals that conclusively demonstrate Gnostic Christianity concepts were here in the Americas extremely early, as early as 200 BC(7). If all of these factors are taken into account then the script in the right column begins to make sense. It is a conglomerate of scripts. Therefore, I now refer to this script as the “Cursive Conglomerate Script.”
1. It makes several known Maya gods to have the appearance of being one and the same.
2. The implication of the Comalcalco brick inscription is that reference is being made to a first and second coming of this Maya god which sounds extremely Christian.
Yet these two aspects cannot be ignored in this inscription. Moreover, the duplicity aspect seems to be underlined by the Maya two-dot symbol for doubling found just below the left lower corner of that glyph.
Boot has suggested that the fourth Maya hieroglyph in the left column is possibly a name. I believe Boot is correct. Notice that just above the upper left corner of that glyph is also the Maya symbol for doubling (two dots). In this case the doubling seems to be in the correct location, at least correct by epigrapher standards. At the moment this name remains undecipherable, but now I will move to the top of the columns. Here are more identification implications as to whom the “he/she” may be.
To the immediate left of the first hieroglyph in the left column is the first circlet used for date identification in the Maya calendar count. Note that it has a line connecting both the circlet and the hieroglyph. The glyph portrays a face with closed eyes and gaping mouth which is a style often reserved for those who are dead. The line connecting seems to refer to “the One” which has died. This has the appearance of being even more associated with Christianity. Now I will turn to review the identification of the entity in the second column.
From above the first Maya glyph in the left column is a line extending to the right over the second column. Before an identifying determination can be made, the script of this second column must be discussed.
The forms found in this second column are in a script that to date has not been recognized as such and therefore has not yet been named. Because of the nature of the script several aspects of it should be noted. First, it is what I would refer to as a cursive script because all of the symbols used overlap one another in a continuous sequence. Some of these symbols fit known Mayan iconography while others do not. Some of the ones used here are from Eastern Indian origin. That aspect should not surprise epigraphers as it has long been demonstrated that the Lunar Mansions of the Maya calendar came from India(5). It can also be demonstrated that scripts such as Ogam and Arabic do exist in Mayan art(6). Additionally, it seems that many Mayan epigraphers ignore David Kelley’s analysis of the San Bartolo Murals that conclusively demonstrate Gnostic Christianity concepts were here in the Americas extremely early, as early as 200 BC(7). If all of these factors are taken into account then the script in the right column begins to make sense. It is a conglomerate of scripts. Therefore, I now refer to this script as the “Cursive Conglomerate Script.”
There appears to be several relatively loose rules for this script. The symbols used can be deliberately contorted in order to be read in multiple ways. Moreover, the symbols or texts used may be oriented in any direction in order to create other usages of different scripts. Finally, the script is deliberately fashioned so that only “like-minded brethren” are able to decipher it. While all of this seems to be very esoteric, that is exactly what the author of this script intended, for just as the script is esoteric so are the Gnostic Christian Maya who executed it. With this understanding I will now examine the first few symbols of the second column of the Comalcalco brick.
The first element in the second column is a poorly drawn fan shell. If this element is considered to be so, then it would essentially translate as “the word.”(8) This title is associated with Jesus.
The second element just behind and slightly overlapping the shell glyph is a large action scroll. Such a scroll is often used in Maya hieroglyphs to depict actions. The essential translation of this element would be “the verb,” which is another title for Christ used in Gnostic Christianity.
In my opinion, the reason that the two elements of the shell and scroll overlap one another is because a third name or title can be created from their unification. In fact, this third title is exactly why the fan shell element is seemingly so poorly drawn. This third combined title alludes to a deer head which is the American Gnostic Christian way of saying “the Lamb” since the Maya had no sheep. Kelley and I both agreed that this was the usage of that symbol in the San Bartolo Murals.(9) As if to verify the identity, farther below in the second column one can find a deer hoof print that is also found in that same usage format at Palenque for example.
I fully realize that all of these identifications with the possible exceptions to direct Maya translations imply Jesus, the Christ. And I realize that such identification is not acceptable by any Maya epigrapher. Yet even leaders among them (i.e. the late David Kelley) see the emergence of Gnostic Christianity within the Classical Maya as a very real and tangible event. Obviously, it will be far easier to shoot down these theories rather than embrace them. Never-the-less, there is far more evidence to support Early Christianity in the Americas than not. However, that evidence is concentrated more in certain Maya sites than others. Comalcalco is a very good example of this. I have attempted to state this previously, but unfortunately the problem is a very complex one. Most do not have the time to consider all of the problems involved. I understand both the lack of time and the reluctance to seriously consider this paradigm shift, but consider the following:
There are an immense amount of Comalcalco bricks containing graffiti that are an exact parallel with the Early Christian catacombs graffiti found in Rome.(10) Not to mention many other Christian elements.(11) So it should not be surprising to find such inscriptions within the Mayan corpus
.
In my opinion, the overwhelming implication is that native Maya began to mix Christian thought and theory into their Mayan traditions. Particularly if Kelley is correct that Gnostic Christianity was here, then the practicality of any one epigrapher to be able to sort out all of these aspects is truly daunting. It seems to be virtually impossible for any single person to completely understand the blend of Gnostic mysticism and Maya mysticism. Therefore, if the inscription on the Stela 6 of Tortuguero and the inscription on the so-called 2012 Comalcalco brick do refer to Jesus a consensus may be reached. For one of the biggest Christian teachings does concern itself with Jesus’ second coming, and when one “reads” the rest of the second column the thought of Christianity and its existence in ancient America grows.
The first element in the second column is a poorly drawn fan shell. If this element is considered to be so, then it would essentially translate as “the word.”(8) This title is associated with Jesus.
The second element just behind and slightly overlapping the shell glyph is a large action scroll. Such a scroll is often used in Maya hieroglyphs to depict actions. The essential translation of this element would be “the verb,” which is another title for Christ used in Gnostic Christianity.
In my opinion, the reason that the two elements of the shell and scroll overlap one another is because a third name or title can be created from their unification. In fact, this third title is exactly why the fan shell element is seemingly so poorly drawn. This third combined title alludes to a deer head which is the American Gnostic Christian way of saying “the Lamb” since the Maya had no sheep. Kelley and I both agreed that this was the usage of that symbol in the San Bartolo Murals.(9) As if to verify the identity, farther below in the second column one can find a deer hoof print that is also found in that same usage format at Palenque for example.
I fully realize that all of these identifications with the possible exceptions to direct Maya translations imply Jesus, the Christ. And I realize that such identification is not acceptable by any Maya epigrapher. Yet even leaders among them (i.e. the late David Kelley) see the emergence of Gnostic Christianity within the Classical Maya as a very real and tangible event. Obviously, it will be far easier to shoot down these theories rather than embrace them. Never-the-less, there is far more evidence to support Early Christianity in the Americas than not. However, that evidence is concentrated more in certain Maya sites than others. Comalcalco is a very good example of this. I have attempted to state this previously, but unfortunately the problem is a very complex one. Most do not have the time to consider all of the problems involved. I understand both the lack of time and the reluctance to seriously consider this paradigm shift, but consider the following:
There are an immense amount of Comalcalco bricks containing graffiti that are an exact parallel with the Early Christian catacombs graffiti found in Rome.(10) Not to mention many other Christian elements.(11) So it should not be surprising to find such inscriptions within the Mayan corpus
.
In my opinion, the overwhelming implication is that native Maya began to mix Christian thought and theory into their Mayan traditions. Particularly if Kelley is correct that Gnostic Christianity was here, then the practicality of any one epigrapher to be able to sort out all of these aspects is truly daunting. It seems to be virtually impossible for any single person to completely understand the blend of Gnostic mysticism and Maya mysticism. Therefore, if the inscription on the Stela 6 of Tortuguero and the inscription on the so-called 2012 Comalcalco brick do refer to Jesus a consensus may be reached. For one of the biggest Christian teachings does concern itself with Jesus’ second coming, and when one “reads” the rest of the second column the thought of Christianity and its existence in ancient America grows.
Second Coming LectureImmediately below the identifying titles of the he/she person found at the top of column two is a large curved (upside down “e”) symbol which, as mentioned earlier, implies a duplication. I believe that this symbol, along with its similar symbol found to the left of the left column, is being used to demonstrate that the subject of the text will repeat (or replicate) the action described in the first column. That is to say, “he/she will arrive again.”
Interestingly, just below this symbol in the right column is grouping three and four of the cursive conglomerate text. Grouping three is reminiscent of a chrysalis and four of an emerging moth or butterfly. Margaret Kohl(12) reads this combination as “emerges.” I concur. It could also possibly be read as “to come forth.” Therefore, I believe that these two images should be read as a fully developed entity emerging from its cocoon. However, there are complications with this reading if the full perspective of the author of the brick is to be understood. At the head or lower end of the chrysalis is a suggested deer hoof print as mentioned earlier. Moreover, the lower two strokes of that hoof print combine with the upper two strokes of the emerging butterfly to result in the formation of a swastika. This should not surprise us either since the swastika has been used in India since very ancient times. Some sources claim that it represents Ursa Major (the Big Dipper) in its four seasonal positions. Therefore, it implies “the order of things” or even “eternal” and the latter would be most applicable here. The cocoon has striations across it that may be read in several different ways. They could be representing a series of trapezoids or even an Ogam style script. While both are feasible and would create readable texts they are not provable at this time. Remember, all of this is a new text and therefore renders tentative readings. |
|
Why So Cryptic?
Before the conclusion to this review of brick T1-452 of Comalcalco, I will address the question as to why the author of that brick desired to be so cryptic. From my perspective the concept of these early Christian groups always being cryptic is common. This fact is a given in Gnostic Christianity. It is due to several factors. Part of being cryptic during the early centuries of Christianity was due to Roman politics for it was illegal to have any god before Caesar.(13) But, there was more to it then that. The earliest Christians were taught by Jesus to not speak of certain things.(14) Moreover, many of these people had concepts of the “silent life.”(15) This view prohibited the early Christian from teaching others unless it was directly requested of them. The Gnostics were particularly fervent in these practices. Therefore, it is assumed that the author of brick T1-452 was practicing his belief when inscribing this brick. He was expressing his faith in a second coming. Further, he was expressing it in what he considered to be an acceptable manner. He believed that only a fellow believer would ever be able to read it. Besides, he was locating that inscription and expression of his faith into a wall where he supposed that no one would ever see it unless it was meant to be discovered.
Conclusion
In spite of the mainstream’s aversion to Christianity having arrived to ancient America, it now appears that not only did it arrive, but that it was relatively strong element within Classical Maya times. This particular inscription, while not specifically referring to 2012, does make a cryptic reference to a future arrival by the “he/she” entity that had already arrived once.
Now for one final thought: as a Mesoamerican archaeologist I am only interested in where the facts lead me. Though all of the claims made here are only made tentatively I strongly believe that most of them are true. It is my belief that any Mesoamerican archaeologist who denies that early Christianity existed in Classical Maya times has chosen to ignore the evidence. Now, I often receive chiding from my peers for having this view. I have been told repeatedly through my career that I am bias because I want to believe in Christ or even believe in the Book of Mormon. I am relieved that so many people can suggest how stupid I am since I obviously cannot see it myself. However, I am a Christian. I have no obligations to an ancient Christian expressing his belief in a second coming. After all, I have unabashedly accepted that belief myself. But, just because I believe in Jesus does not mean that I am trying to “create” history to fit my image of him. There are those who will choose to reject all of my findings based on this last admission. However, then one must ignore all of David Kelley’s findings as well, not to mention the art and historical data that is beginning to reveal that the Maya were testifying of their belief in a risen god who will return.
Therefore, it seems reasonable to assume that there are Old World influences at Comalcalco. Though studies in the past such as those comparing Roman Mason Marks with Comalcalco Mason Marks have been ridiculed, the overwhelming evidence is that substantial Roman cultural baggage was brought to Comalcalco. Though many are tempted to quote me as proclaiming that Romans were in ancient Mesoamerica; I have never said that. My educated guess is that few if any Romans arrived at all. Roman cultural baggage can be found the whole length of the Old Silk Road, from Greece to ancient Oceo in the MeKong Delta. Taking things such as the Maya calendar Lunar Mansions and Shell Script into account it must be considered to be much more probable that the Comalcalco migration originated from somewhere between India and Vietnam. The Christian cultural baggage was so intense because Christianity had spread like wildfire the full length of the Silk Road by the first century CE. Moreover, as Kelly has shown, those Christians were apparently Gnostic Christian and Gnostics loved to be enigmatic. Most certainly, an enigma is what we now have. As further parallels to the Southeast Asia connection the downtown plans of Oceo and Comalcalco are eerily laid out in similar fashion.
Now for one final thought: as a Mesoamerican archaeologist I am only interested in where the facts lead me. Though all of the claims made here are only made tentatively I strongly believe that most of them are true. It is my belief that any Mesoamerican archaeologist who denies that early Christianity existed in Classical Maya times has chosen to ignore the evidence. Now, I often receive chiding from my peers for having this view. I have been told repeatedly through my career that I am bias because I want to believe in Christ or even believe in the Book of Mormon. I am relieved that so many people can suggest how stupid I am since I obviously cannot see it myself. However, I am a Christian. I have no obligations to an ancient Christian expressing his belief in a second coming. After all, I have unabashedly accepted that belief myself. But, just because I believe in Jesus does not mean that I am trying to “create” history to fit my image of him. There are those who will choose to reject all of my findings based on this last admission. However, then one must ignore all of David Kelley’s findings as well, not to mention the art and historical data that is beginning to reveal that the Maya were testifying of their belief in a risen god who will return.
Therefore, it seems reasonable to assume that there are Old World influences at Comalcalco. Though studies in the past such as those comparing Roman Mason Marks with Comalcalco Mason Marks have been ridiculed, the overwhelming evidence is that substantial Roman cultural baggage was brought to Comalcalco. Though many are tempted to quote me as proclaiming that Romans were in ancient Mesoamerica; I have never said that. My educated guess is that few if any Romans arrived at all. Roman cultural baggage can be found the whole length of the Old Silk Road, from Greece to ancient Oceo in the MeKong Delta. Taking things such as the Maya calendar Lunar Mansions and Shell Script into account it must be considered to be much more probable that the Comalcalco migration originated from somewhere between India and Vietnam. The Christian cultural baggage was so intense because Christianity had spread like wildfire the full length of the Silk Road by the first century CE. Moreover, as Kelly has shown, those Christians were apparently Gnostic Christian and Gnostics loved to be enigmatic. Most certainly, an enigma is what we now have. As further parallels to the Southeast Asia connection the downtown plans of Oceo and Comalcalco are eerily laid out in similar fashion.
The Dark Side of Comalcalco
I only include this segment to dispel some of the dark rumors surrounding Comalcalco. Many of the people mentioned below referred to ourselves as the “C” group because of so many dark aspects of Comalcalco and this included its very name that begins with the letter C.
The Curse
Archaeologist Panifacio Salazar excavated what has become to be known as the “Salazar Pit” exactly where the flat-topped tomb was located on Temple 1. As far as I know all those who have entered that pit has died. The list includes Salazar, Pina Chan, Mario Perez-Campa, David Kelley, Stele Bryant and several other workers whose names I do not recall at the moment. At this time I am the only surviving member of the Salazar Pit teams from that time period. However, though parts of that pit have collapsed, I am more than sure that more recent explorers have visited it without negative results. It should also be mentioned that as far as I know none of the deaths were under mysterious circumstances with the single exception of my friend Mario Perez-Campa.(16) Essentially, there is no curse.
The Conspiracy I
This rumor was inadvertently started by engineer Barcenas in the 1980s. Barcenas was the head of the official Mexican government archaeology organization, INAH, and was the one who afforded me access to the Comalcalco bricks after Salazar’s death. That access allowed me to compile and publish The Preliminary Catalogue of the Comalcalco Bricks in 1984. Barcenas, while offering no funding, totally hated the publication and ordered that no Mexican archaeologist was to ever work with me or they would face expulsion from Mexican archaeology. In that sense there was a conspiracy, but it was not secretive and was only aimed at me. In Barcenas’ view, my suggestions of Old World contacts and specifically suggestions of Christian contacts in ancient Mesoamerica were completely unrealistic.
Conspiracy II: The Christian Conspiracy
There existed a nucleus of scholars who felt that there were heavy Christian ties to Comalcalco. This group included David Kelley, Barry Fell,(17) Mario Perez-Campa, Phil Leonard, Bill McGlone, James Guthrie, Rollin Gillespie, James Whittall Jr., Larry Athy, Stele Bryant and myself. Leonard, Guthrie and I are still alive. Many outsiders believed that only I could see that Christian connection and that is probably due to the fact that I have written about it far more often than the others. However, Kelley was actually the catalyst to the group. As he repeatedly stated, “Any reasonable person must concede to Christian influence into the Maya culture, if only because of the man hung from the tree aspect if nothing else.” David went on to prove Christianity’s existence in the America’s with his momentous article about the San Bartolo Murals.(18)
However, none of the people mentioned here are or were Mormons (including myself) as the conspiracy advocates claim that there was a “Mormon Conspiracy” to prove such.
However, none of the people mentioned here are or were Mormons (including myself) as the conspiracy advocates claim that there was a “Mormon Conspiracy” to prove such.
The New York Event
Mario Perez-Campa led a group of interested colleagues to examine Comalcalco bricks collected by Gordon Ekholm which now are in the archives of the New York Museum of Natural History. That group included Frank Reynolds, Larry Athy, Sean Adair and myself under the guidance of David Kelley. Permission to publish those photos has never been given. However, that collection conclusively demonstrates early Christian influence in Mesoamerica. Kelley also found a great amount of India/Sri Lankan and Southeast Asian influences. As I understand it, Kelley consulted with Paul Tolstoy at that time and he concurred with the results reported.
The New Orleans Event
Frank Reynolds, Larry Athy and I visited and researched first hand Franz Blom’s replica of the “Tomb of the Nine Lords of the Night” located at Tulane University in New Orleans, Louisiana. We all concur as to the Old World influences present in these friezes. The replicas at Tulane are the only record left of these images as the ones on site at Comalcalco have been destroyed.
Conclusions
References to Comalcalco curses or conspiracies are for the most part unfounded. The seemingly only real conspiracy is the one that suppresses recognition of Christian or Old World influences at Comalcalco. Even today there are eminent Maya epigraphers who irrevocably state that they see none of influences claimed. However, in my opinion, there are two very important points here;
1) None of the present-day scholars who negate Old World contacts have any training in Old World cultures, thus the question looms, “Would such scholars recognize such influences even if they saw them?” and
2) No one has come to ask me concerning any such influences with a single exception. Professor Victor Mair of Pennsylvania University arranged to sponsor a three-day conference with the only subject being Comalcalco and its Old World influences. I had more than fifteen scholars from Kelley to Johannessen and Carter to Meggers ready to present papers, but shortly before the conference was to occur it was cancelled. To my understanding the cancellation was made by the Department of Anthropology largely based on the fact that the department was embarrassed by the previous publication of Man Across the Sea which they felt was not realistic. No apology for cancellation was ever given except by Dr. Mair. Since that time it appears as though all institutions of higher learning are fearful of sponsoring such a conference. Hopefully this view will change in the future, but while it does not, the conspiracy mill will still have fodder upon which to feed.
1) None of the present-day scholars who negate Old World contacts have any training in Old World cultures, thus the question looms, “Would such scholars recognize such influences even if they saw them?” and
2) No one has come to ask me concerning any such influences with a single exception. Professor Victor Mair of Pennsylvania University arranged to sponsor a three-day conference with the only subject being Comalcalco and its Old World influences. I had more than fifteen scholars from Kelley to Johannessen and Carter to Meggers ready to present papers, but shortly before the conference was to occur it was cancelled. To my understanding the cancellation was made by the Department of Anthropology largely based on the fact that the department was embarrassed by the previous publication of Man Across the Sea which they felt was not realistic. No apology for cancellation was ever given except by Dr. Mair. Since that time it appears as though all institutions of higher learning are fearful of sponsoring such a conference. Hopefully this view will change in the future, but while it does not, the conspiracy mill will still have fodder upon which to feed.
Bias
Perhaps this particular segment is unwarranted, but when considering the accusations I have received over the years, it might be.
Many have claimed that they do not perceive Old World connections in Comalcalco that I perceive. Most claim that I “see” these connections because I hold a bias based on my personal beliefs. I disagree. I believe that many feel this way about my findings because they are biased against them. I do not believe that their bias is purposeful. However, if one has not trained himself in the observance of these things in the Old World, then how can one be expected to see them?
In particular my belief in Christianity is what bothers most. I am not ignorant of the fact that my belief in Christ is not based on fact, but rather on faith. I seriously question myself every time that I compare early Christian cultural baggage to Maya iconography. I do have the ability to separate my belief system from my research.
While I understand why most feel that this stance of straddling the religious and the scientific worlds is seemingly impossible, I can assure you that it is not. This was totally understood by several of my mentors. Dr. George Carter, Dr. Cyrus Gordon, Dr. Alexander vonWuthenau, Dr. David Kelley and others understood my view. I do not hide from it or fear it. When David Kelley and I compared our San Bartolo Mural translations we found that we only had three disagreements. The largest of the three was the time element. This disagreement could have been easily resolved if David would have accepted the view that the murals were “Messiah generic” as opposed to “Jesus specific.” However, David chose to believe that they were “Jesus specific.” While I applaud David for his commitment I still believe that he chose the harder path.
Be that as it may, I must clarify that though I fully believe that Christianity made it to the Americas in ancient times, my religion is not founded upon that fact being true or untrue. I simply believe that I can see these things because I have the conviction that these ancient people were not dumber than I.
Things such as measuring systems, clothing styles, construction techniques, scripts, mason marks, numeric systems and the like should be addressed rather than ignored. The simplistic statements that begin with “We know the ancients did not….” is not true science. “We know that they did not think that way!” “We know that they believed……!” These statements are much more biased than any I make. I am simply interested in the truth. I can tell you that at this moment I do not know all of the truth. Maybe, just maybe, my own Christian baggage allows me to more clearly see others who are carrying that same baggage 2,000 years ago. Now, if anyone wishes to convince me that my beliefs are erroneous, feel free to do so, but understand I am not going to waste time on frivolous and unproductive arguments. However, I will listen. The email address provided will allow contact, but I will not be checking it except for about once a month.
Many have claimed that they do not perceive Old World connections in Comalcalco that I perceive. Most claim that I “see” these connections because I hold a bias based on my personal beliefs. I disagree. I believe that many feel this way about my findings because they are biased against them. I do not believe that their bias is purposeful. However, if one has not trained himself in the observance of these things in the Old World, then how can one be expected to see them?
In particular my belief in Christianity is what bothers most. I am not ignorant of the fact that my belief in Christ is not based on fact, but rather on faith. I seriously question myself every time that I compare early Christian cultural baggage to Maya iconography. I do have the ability to separate my belief system from my research.
While I understand why most feel that this stance of straddling the religious and the scientific worlds is seemingly impossible, I can assure you that it is not. This was totally understood by several of my mentors. Dr. George Carter, Dr. Cyrus Gordon, Dr. Alexander vonWuthenau, Dr. David Kelley and others understood my view. I do not hide from it or fear it. When David Kelley and I compared our San Bartolo Mural translations we found that we only had three disagreements. The largest of the three was the time element. This disagreement could have been easily resolved if David would have accepted the view that the murals were “Messiah generic” as opposed to “Jesus specific.” However, David chose to believe that they were “Jesus specific.” While I applaud David for his commitment I still believe that he chose the harder path.
Be that as it may, I must clarify that though I fully believe that Christianity made it to the Americas in ancient times, my religion is not founded upon that fact being true or untrue. I simply believe that I can see these things because I have the conviction that these ancient people were not dumber than I.
Things such as measuring systems, clothing styles, construction techniques, scripts, mason marks, numeric systems and the like should be addressed rather than ignored. The simplistic statements that begin with “We know the ancients did not….” is not true science. “We know that they did not think that way!” “We know that they believed……!” These statements are much more biased than any I make. I am simply interested in the truth. I can tell you that at this moment I do not know all of the truth. Maybe, just maybe, my own Christian baggage allows me to more clearly see others who are carrying that same baggage 2,000 years ago. Now, if anyone wishes to convince me that my beliefs are erroneous, feel free to do so, but understand I am not going to waste time on frivolous and unproductive arguments. However, I will listen. The email address provided will allow contact, but I will not be checking it except for about once a month.
Links to Articles
http://www.delange.org/Comalcalco/Comalcalco.htm
http://www.mexconnect.com/articles/1241-did-708-know-mayan-pyramid-in-tabasco-mexico http://www.lauralee.com/steede.htm
http://wallacegsmith.wordpress.com/2011/11/27/rain-on-the-comalcalco-parade/
http://news.yahoo.com/chaa-creek-astounded-comalcalco-brick-180144493.html
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/45438811/ns/technology_and_science-science/t/mexico#.Tz13tcVum5I_
http://www.ghosttheory.com/2011/11/28/another-mayan-brick-in-the-wall
http://ocasa.org/MayanPyramid.htmhttp://wallacegsmith.wordpress.com/2011/11/25/the-comalcalco-brick-and-the-2012-non-pocalypse/
http://famsi.org/pipermail/aztlan/2010-July/007529.html
http://haecceities.wordpress.com/2011/11/26/2012-the-comalcalco-bricks/
http://www.eldoradonews.com/news/WireHeadlines/2011/11/25/the-comalcalco-brick-45.php
http://loganhawkes.com/comalcalco.htm
http://realitysandwich.com/second_mayan_reference_2012/
http://www.mexconnect.com/articles/1241-did-708-know-mayan-pyramid-in-tabasco-mexico http://www.lauralee.com/steede.htm
http://wallacegsmith.wordpress.com/2011/11/27/rain-on-the-comalcalco-parade/
http://news.yahoo.com/chaa-creek-astounded-comalcalco-brick-180144493.html
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/45438811/ns/technology_and_science-science/t/mexico#.Tz13tcVum5I_
http://www.ghosttheory.com/2011/11/28/another-mayan-brick-in-the-wall
http://ocasa.org/MayanPyramid.htmhttp://wallacegsmith.wordpress.com/2011/11/25/the-comalcalco-brick-and-the-2012-non-pocalypse/
http://famsi.org/pipermail/aztlan/2010-July/007529.html
http://haecceities.wordpress.com/2011/11/26/2012-the-comalcalco-bricks/
http://www.eldoradonews.com/news/WireHeadlines/2011/11/25/the-comalcalco-brick-45.php
http://loganhawkes.com/comalcalco.htm
http://realitysandwich.com/second_mayan_reference_2012/
