Home of the The Hall of Ma'at on the Internet
Home
Discussion Forums
Papers
Authors

July 2, 2020, 6:34 am UTC    
December 13, 2011 01:27AM
WVK Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> bernard Wrote:
>
> > The ball game is real. Its been played since
> at
> > least 1400 BC when we date the first ball
> court
> > found on the Chiapas coast. There are ball
> courts
> > all over Meoamerica. It is also a very
> important
> > part of the religion and the mythology. An
> > important part of the Popol Vuh deals with
> games
> > played by the Hero Twins and their fathers
> in
> > Xibalba, the underworld. What we have here
> is
> > WVK's attempt by WVK to rescue his hypothesis
> by
> > again shifting the goal posts.
> > there is precious little evidence from Maya
> > scholars for the sole purpose of the Ball
> Court to
> > be a "ceremonial place." speculation is just
> > speculation
> > Bernard
>
> It is not WVK stating his personal opinion
> regarding how the GBC was used, rather it is WVK
> providing references that indicate Mesoamericanist
> opinion:
>
> Ringle 2003:170
> "...has suggested that CI GBC was primarily a
> ceremonial space that swerved as a
> monumental effigy of a ball court. For that reason
> it did not need to conform to the more pragmatic
> consideration of a ball court"
>
> Perhaps you should contact Professor Ringle to
> inform him that he doesn't know what he's talking
> about.

You really need to read the literature and not rely on snippets dredged from the internet.
Ringle wrote " The Political Organization of Chichen Itza," Ancient Mesoamerica, 15 (2004), 167–218
The principal thrust of Ringle's argument is that Chichen Itza was an important site of investiture of authority for rulers of smaller polities. Following to some extent the Zuyua concept for which I quoted Lopez Austin and Lopez Lujan earlier. Thus:

"With regard to investiture, one image from the Great Ballcourt
is particularly striking. There, at the terminus of the north–south
axis of what is undoubtedly one of the most important structures
at Chichen (and the largest ballcourt in Mesoamerica), lies the
North Temple of the Great Ballcourt, Chichen Itza, Mausdlay’s
Temple C (NT; Figure 2), a building whose interior was entirely
covered by reliefs.3 Within this structure, the viewer’s gaze is
irresistibly drawn toward the central image of the rear wall, showing
a vast assembly congregated around not one king, not several
kings, but an empty jaguar throne (Figure 3). The reason for this
was correctly noted some years ago by Linnea Wren and Peter
Schmidt (1991; also Wren 1994) in what is still the best study of
these sculptures: the NT is foregrounding an accession (or investiture)
event.
The entire Great Ballcourt, I would argue, owed its monumentality
precisely to the role it played in investiture rituals and possibly
was less a functioning court than an immense effigy of one,
as its impossibly high ballcourt rings might suggest. It was, in
effect, a large arena for legitimating leaders who were not necessarily
local. Although Maya rulers frequently identify themselves
as ballplayers, a specific role for the ballgame in Maya accession
rites is not attested (but see Smith et al. 2005). To understand why
an investiture scene was placed within the GBC we must instead
turn to the traditions mentioned earlier, beginning with the Mixteca-
Puebla region. Although Wren (1994) argues that the reliefs find
general parallels in Aztec investiture rituals, much more specific
parallels can be identified in manuscripts from the Puebla-
Tlaxcala area, as well as in the Mixtec codices, the subjects of
which had very clear political ties to Cholula (Byland and Pohl
1994:138–151). This is not to deny Wren’s point. Rather, it is to
suggest that all of these rites reflect a broader tradition of kingship
of which the Aztecs were only a late manifestation."

You want to argue like a creationist "Any evidence against evolution is evidence in favor of creationism. NO! If in fact, the Great Ball Court is a place for symbolic investiture-- this say nothing in favor of planned rattlesnake flutter echoes.

Further, your argument here militates against Lubman's argument that the ratttlesnake flutter echoes were produced by the ball bouncing off the walls and the garments of the ballplayers.

>
>
> And what to make of "Many scholars"?:
>
> "The Great Ballcourt, the largest one ever built
> in Mesoamerica. Its dimensions are such, many
> scholars have suggested that actual ballplay would
> have been impossible. They maintain it may have
> been used as a ritual space where the ballgame was
> never played but which was, nevertheless, charged
> with all the cosmological meaning of an actual
> ballcourt"

Unnamed "many scholars" I wager that when you track this down they are all citing Ringle's paper.
>
> Found on a no-nonsense website that contains
> articles by Coe, Houston, Stuart, Freidel etc.
>
> Might it appropriate to find out who these
> scholars are and their reasoning in
> order to "weight the evidence for alternative
> history"?
>
> It appears to me that you are overly eager to
> dismiss evidence that contradicts your
> preconceived opinions.
Yeah, really tough my "preconceived opinion" is that evidence is required and that "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence."

As I pointed out y'all have not only provided no cultural evidence the "scientific" evidence is actually very weak-- no sonograms, no exact replication of what caused sounds etc.
Bernard


>
> WVK


Subject Author Posted

Great Ballcourt acoustics

WVK December 11, 2011 11:41AM

Re: Great Ballcourt acoustics

Jammer December 12, 2011 11:48AM

Re: Great Ballcourt acoustics

bernard December 12, 2011 03:53PM

Re: Great Ballcourt acoustics

WVK December 12, 2011 10:30PM

Re: Great Ballcourt acoustics

Katherine Reece December 13, 2011 12:35AM

Re: Great Ballcourt acoustics

WVK December 13, 2011 01:16PM

Re: Great Ballcourt acoustics

Katherine Reece December 13, 2011 02:59PM

Re: Great Ballcourt acoustics

bernard December 13, 2011 01:27AM

Re: Great Ballcourt acoustics

WVK December 13, 2011 10:17AM

Re: Great Ballcourt acoustics

WVK December 30, 2011 12:00PM

Re: Great Ballcourt acoustics

WVK December 30, 2011 12:01PM

Re: Great Ballcourt acoustics

Katherine Reece December 12, 2011 07:13PM

Re: Great Ballcourt acoustics

WVK December 12, 2011 12:56PM

Re: Great Ballcourt acoustics

Jammer December 12, 2011 04:04PM

Re: Great Ballcourt acoustics

Sirfiroth December 14, 2011 10:59AM

Re: Great Ballcourt acoustics

Cognito January 04, 2012 05:31PM

Re: Great Ballcourt acoustics

Sam Salmon January 04, 2012 08:52PM

Re: Great Ballcourt acoustics

WVK August 04, 2012 04:28PM



Sorry, only registered users may post in this forum.

Click here to login