Talk:Hunab Ku

This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Mexico This article is within the scope of WikiProject Mexico, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Mexico on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.MexicoWikipedia:WikiProject MexicoTemplate:WikiProject MexicoMexico articles ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. inactive .MesoamericaWikipedia:WikiProject MesoamericaTemplate:WikiProject MesoamericaMesoamerica articles

Was there something wrong with my edit? I didn't think there was anything wrong with having minimal information on the god. T@nn 16:13, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

On February 15, 2012, I received the following explanation of the origins of the motif in an email message from epigrapher Gordon Whittaker, a specialist in Mesoamerican writing systems who apparently played an inadvertent yet effective role in reviving the design by taking it from the Codex Magliabecchiano and giving it to the weavers of Teotitlan. It was subsequently discovered by José Argüelles, who popularized it in association with his promotion of the 1987 Harmonic Convergence. This seems to be a clear example of the intermediary role that scholars can play in indigenous cultural revival, an example of the "invention of tradition":

"In the '70s I was preparing to write my dissertation for Yale and spent the summers of 1975 and 1976 in the Valley of Oaxaca studying the inscriptions of Monte Alban. In my spare time, and as a supplement to the epigraphic work, I collected folk beliefs in Teotitlan del Valle that seemed to relate in some fashion to Prehispanic Zapotec culture. While there I spent much time interviewing weavers and chatting with the young women tending the stalls in the marketplace (of course, only to improve my Zapotec). In the process I bought a good many textiles, predominantly ponchos and blankets.

"When I returned in 1976 I brought with me my favorite Aztec design from the Codex Magliabechiano, which I had used as a mural motif in my dorm room. I had turned the yellow-and black original into a black-and-white variant for the mural, and this was the design I gave to one of the weavers, paying him to weave it on a blanket which I would pick up the following summer. I remember at the time the weavers commenting on the elegance of the design. The motif was at that time unknown in Oaxaca, and most definitely so in Oaxaca City and Teotitlan. Unfortunately for me, I was unable to acquire financing for the following summer, and when I finally got back in 1978 I was on my way home to Australia and could only afford a short stay in Oaxaca City to discuss epigraphic matters with the the regional INAH center. On a stroll through the market I was surprised to see my adapted design on blankets at the stalls tended by weavers from Teotitlan.

"At the Mesoamerikanistentagung in Bonn this weekend there was considerable amusement over the history of this motif and my part in it. On returning from the conference, and while surfing cyberspace, I discovered that Argüelles claimed to have first seen the allegedly Zapotec/Maya design in Teotitlan (though sometimes claiming it was in 1968 rather than the '70s). It is indeed a small world!"

Information provided by Hoopes (talk) 21:05, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The claim that "Hunab Ku is a name invented" was added without citation by user Hoopes on March 15, 2009, who's personal research of the issue, consisting of heated online discussions, can be easily verified. The claim that it was invented is contradicted by the bibliographical source (Thompson 1970), which does mention that Roys tentatively suggested (through informal personal communication) that it might have been invented, but proceeds to present evidence to the contrary, concluding that Hunab Ku in all probability was an indigenous conception and name.

Shouldn't the uncited claim referring to "Mayanist scholars today" be replaced with a fair (and therefore supportive to Morley) citation of Thompson?

I can find no suggestion in Munro Edmonson's commentary to his 1986 translation of the Chumayel that Hunab Ku is a colonial invention. In his section of commentary on the god in the introduction, Edmonson states that a one out of many conception of the divine was central to the indigenous spirituality, and that "religious conroversy" led to the use of the term "hahal ku" or "True God", which is used in passages as a syncretism of the Mayan Hunab Ku and the Spanish Dios.

The book Maya Cosmos by Schele et al. clearly delineates the conception of one out of many as a central aspect to ancient and indigenous Maya spirituality.

One scholar I can find who suggests the term Hunab Ku is "risky" is Miguel Leon-Portilla in his 1999 article "Ometeotl, El Supremo Dios Dual...", in which he compares it to the term "Icelteotl" and says both "appear to have been introduced by missionary friars". He does not give reference for this claim, although it contradicts his earlier writing in Time and Reality in the Thought of the Maya in which, citing a document entitled "Relacion de Valladolid", he calls Hunab Ku "the supreme and only god". In the same work, he, like Edmonson, draws a distinction between Hunab Ku and Hahal Ku--"the "True God" introduced by the Christian missionaries".

As for the New Age sections, the article states matter of factly that Arguelles was introduced to the Hunab Ku concept by Martinez, but the talk page (user Hoopes again) reveals that this is based on nothing but circumstantial evidence. Arguelles in the Mayan Factor makes it explicitly clear that he encountered the design on modern weavings while travelling in Oaxaca, Mexico. The article should also cite the source of his supposed claim that the design comes from ancient Maya artifacts. I don't think he has made such a claim.

As for the reference to graphic human sacrifice in the Codex, another indication of bias. The Wikipedia article on the Codex doesn't mention human sacrifice, nor does the description on the FAMSI website. Both opt instead to note specifically its calendrical utility, while leaving the few depictions of human sacrifice under the rubric of other rituals. Of the more than 180 pages of the Codex I don't think any more than 8 depict human sacrifice, while calendrical progressions, weaving designs, and costumed individuals/deities, constitute the large large majority of the Codex. A perusal of user Hoopes' personal research discussions reveals that he knows drawing out-of-context attention to the sensationalistic practice of human sacrifice is highly provocational. Is this the same sort of colonial bias that caused the Codex to be labeled in its introduction as "Superstitions and Evil Rites"?

This article needs fundamental change to reflect the full scope of scholarly perspectives on Hunab Ku, apart from reactionist missionizing. Aharon ahau (talk) 22:50, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OK, we are not dealing with ancient Greeks and Romans. These Maya are still very much alive and well and keeping their history and traditions intact. Why do Western scholars always focus on Mayanist writings (Western scholars of the Maya) when the Maya themselves have written and spoken? Today, post-war... or is the writing of an Indigenous Mayan Elder worth less than that of a published Mayanist scholar? Why focus on Arguelles and his work rather than on Hunbatz Men and his work? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Khananel (talk • contribs) 19:22, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

to quote from Wikipedia:No_original_research: "Wikipedia is not the place to publish your own opinions, experiences, arguments, or conclusions." Aharon ahau (talk) 22:55, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The image of a motif (

The wikipedia image itself probably needs to be deleted anyway, as that particular version is certainly a modern-day drawing by someone, & is miss-tagged as Public Domain.--cjllw | TALK 10:03, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That associating the symbol with Hunab Ku is a misinterpretation is already stated in the article. But that crackpot didn't invent it, or if he did I doubt he will claim copyright, as he says it's ancient. Anyway a redrawing should definitely be fair use. Or does Mayan copyright extend til the end of the baktun?--87.162.19.121 (talk) 05:12, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Heh- no, Mayan copyright on the design is not the one to worry about here. It's the copyright of the modern illustrator who renders the design- even if it's based on some symbolism from 100s of years ago. If for eg a modern illustrator makes a drawing of some Maya glyphs from some stela, they retain copyright to their drawing / impression (not of the glyphs themselves obviously). The drawing is interpretative and not simply reproductive in nature, ie it is not a pure facsimile. So we can't for eg just use here drawings made by some modern scholar of a glyph. --cjllw ʘ TALK 13:43, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is about all that can reasonably be said about Hunab Ku.Retal 22:18, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Moving the following here from article:

==Hunab Ku as Doomsday==

On the winter solstice on 12/21/2012, the Mayas saw that the earth, the sun, and the center of the galaxy (they called it the "dark rift" or the "black hole")<ref>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D7iDb1_GcZc&feature=PlayList&p=1CE2343F5FAAD379&index=1&playnext=2&playnext_from=PL</ref>. This happens once very 25,800 years. They thought that the world would end on that day and called it the Hunab Ku. There is science to think doomsday prophecy; the last time this happened, the was a slow moving shift in the magnetic pole of the earth. When that happened, there was only minor change: sea level rise and climate change. If it took place rapidly (hours or days) there would have been massive earthquakes and tsunamis all over the world. Princeton scientists say that 30,000 years ago the magnetic equator was just under Alaska.(Note: this dose not mean Alaska was hot, it mean that a compass would point southeast of Alaska)

One issue is that we cannot link to copyright violations, and a History Channel episode uploaded to YouTube is undoubtably that. My problem with this though is that it is written in a somewhat inconsistent manner with some probably pseudoscientific, certainly controversial assertions that would need a bit of solid referencing if it were to be included in the article. As for referencing a television documentary that is obviously possible, but to do this in an acceptable fashion I suggest the use of the {{

I'd say there's no need to include any of that information. It is, as you note, clear pseudohistory with no basis in actual scholarship or anything to do with Maya beliefs, past or present. If that's an accurate summary of the History [sic] Channel programme's content, then the programme's makers appear to have haphazardly stitched together any piece of 2012 and Maya-related silliness they could get their hands on, plus a bit more besides. That doco would not be regarded as any kind of reliable source, and I suspect it would not be worth the trouble to track down the cites for the New Age/fringe writers like Arguelles and Calleman the doco seems to draw from. It doesn't belong here.--cjllw ʘ TALK 12:15, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Unless an earlier reference can be found, it seems clear that New Age interpretations of "Hunab Ku" can be traced to the work of this author. I've added accurate citations and some summary of his main points. What is important to remember is that the association of "Hunab Ku" with a specific symbol was first done by Martínez, not by either the Mayas or the Aztecs, and that the original symbol he used was a simple square within a circle or a circle within a square (not to be confused with squaring the circle). In her 2009 biography of her husband José Argüelles, Stephanie South mentions that Argüelles met Martínez at a conference in Mexico. Since Martínez 1964 publication Hunab Kú was in Spanish and not widely available, it seems likely that Argüelles learned much of what he knew about "Hunab Ku" from César Mena Toto (a.k.a. Hunbatz Men), who paraphrases sections from Martínez' work in his own books. Martínez' influence on both of them is obvious. However, his original publication is rarely cited. (I first found mention of it in Peter Tompkins' 1976 book Secrets of the Mexican Pyramids.)Hoopes (talk) 23:11, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Hoopes, many thanks for that, had seen ur recent post on aztlan and glad you've been able to work that info into here.

Would you happen to know whether Martínez' work make mention or reference to the poet Honorato Ignacio Magaloni Duarte (1898-1974), who I gather was a contemporary and fellow yucateco with similar interests in maya/indigena 'philosophy'? I see both their names crop up together in some of the more outlandish sites and as influential sources in (later) indigenist & chicano/a literature & theatre (eg

Teatro Campesino).

They collaborated together on some work(s) I think, I haven't read any of Magaloni's stuff but it seems to have been well-infused with notions of maya/indigena spirituality & philosophy as universals underpinning the world's cultures, much like a lot of the more modern New Age Hunab Ku-isms, going back into his earlier poetry of the 1940s & 1950s. His later 1969 essay Educadores del mundo apparently went so far as to claim that the maya were like some Urvolk who influenced Old World cultures, that many Eurasian languages derive from Mayan, that Jesus spoke Mayan etc.

I was just wondering to what degree if any his works contained elements or a germination of Mayanism spirituality & Hunab-ku 'oneness', & whether he & Martínez had common influences, or if one influenced the other...none of the secondary sources I've been able to find quite clarify any relation. Regards, --cjllw ʘ TALK 15:41, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

The text currently says "Moksha Gita (yellow spectral warrior) pipes in". This is awful encyclopaedic writing and editing. Alpheus (talk) 01:18, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it's no worse than the rubbish that fills up the rest of the paragraph, essentially saying "it's been invented by European proselytizers, but no fear, in the 1980s someone re-appropriated it to pre-columbian religion" which doesn't make any sense. 94.169.249.202 (talk) 12:20, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]