|
TRANSLATIONS
I guess it is just a coincidence that 'tamarisk' (tamarix) is a word that starts with 'tama'. Though 'rix' sounds like a king (latin rex). The probable reason for the appearance in myth of the tamarisk tree is rather its strange 'customs': withstanding fire, subduing competition and giving multiple offspring (floating in the air and on the water with help of a tufty sail of hair). We proceed with night as described in H. First, let us count glyphs. In A we found the pattern to be:
Having thus established with a high degree of probability the integrity and extent of the 'day' calendar, we did not count glyphs in P and Q in a similar manner. Instead the different internal structures (of the 'day' calendars) in A, P and Q were discussed. Therefore it is time to make tables not only for the number of glyphs in the 'day' calendar of H, but also for the number of glyphs in the 'day' calendars of P and Q. We start with P:
With X is here meant the still uninvestigated part of the calendar (with 3 glyphs in A), where X alludes to this unusual type of glyph (GD88):
found in the uninvestigated part. Both 3 (A) and 6 (P) are numbers solar in character (3 wives for the sun and 6 double-months in a year). 36 (A) may be read as 360 (with zero omitted as was usual in ancient times) and 54 (P) may possibly be read as 3 * 18 (in the same way as 36 = 2 * 18). In solar perspective there are two half-years with (approximately) 180 days, and in lunar perspective there are three wives during the year, each having 120 nights with the sun. A better reading would, though, be to interpret 36 (A) as four quadrants (cfr GD88 above) and 54 (P) as having six parts. Then we get 4 * 90 = 360 and 6 * 90 = 540. But then we have to reduce 54(0) and 9(0) with 1½ (= 540 / 360) to compress the lunar numbers into the solar calendrical year. 54 (P) → 360 = 6 * 60 The circular sky and the square (4) earth are difficult to combine, and the best solution 'lies' in approximating the circle by way of an inscribed hexagon (6), resulting in the relation 1½. In Q the structure of the 'day' calender is different:
The time after noon (before night) is not described in the Q calendar and there are no 'X' glyphs. 13 is a number which points at the moon: 28 * 13 = 364. The number of nights in a month is ca 29½, but we can see the moon illuminated from the sun during only ca 28 of those nights. As 29½ * 13 = ca 384 (remarkably a member in the series 3, 6, 12, 24, 48 ... ) the nights when moon is unlit cannot be counted in a calendar round for the sun. Added to 16 we reach 29, which possibly indicates the number of whole nights in a lunar month. 16 is a number in the series 1, 2, 4, 8, 16 ... Dividing the 360 degrees of a circle we get 360, 180, 90, 45, 22½ ... As the number corresponding to 16 not is a whole number this is not a good explanation of 16. Perhaps, therefore, 16 is just what is needed to fill in the gap from 13 to 29. But the moon calendar in Mamari has 8 periods, and 16 might be read as though these 8 periods were doubleperiods. Now to H:
A good guess is that there once were 32 glyphs in the day part. All day periods in H, before the last partly destroyed one, end with variants of hau tea and tapa mea. Therefore also the last period probably ended that way. The parallel period in P has hau tea and tapa mea at its end. 32 is a member in the series: 1, 2, 4, 8, 16, 32 ... As to the number of glyphs in the X part we cannot be sure. From Barthel's description of the line we may estimate that there are 4-5 glyphs totally missing at the end of the day part and at the beginning of the X part. Of these 4-5 glyphs we have already referred 2 glyphs to the day part and thereafter we have 2-3 remaining annihilated glyphs for the X part. We can compare with the parallel glyphs of X in P:
I guess there once were 3 glyphs in H corresponding to the first two in P. Easily we may imagine the 2nd glyph in X (in P) being split up into two glyphs. 7 glyphs for the X part of H is, though, also quite possible. At least judged isolated like this. We may even imagine that there was only one complex glyph at the beginning of the X part in H (corresponding to the two in P). That would result in 6 glyphs for the X period (in H) and in 50 glyphs for the calendar as a whole. 6 in the X periods of H and P is twice the 3 glyphs in the X period of A, and therefore seems to be reasonable (signifying sun by way of 6 doublemonths respectively 3 wives). But 50 is not a number with any 'magic' feeling. We accumulate into a new table:
The similarity we once noted between the glyphs at the beginning of the day in H and Q (no 'eye' in the middle of the sun 'nut'):
is not reflected in any similarities in the numbers of the table of accumulated numbers. On the contrary, A and H are more in harmony with each other by way of having 12 glyphs for the night period, in contrast to the 13 glyphs of P and Q. I think this difference is relevant in giving us a sign about what the writers had in mind. 12 is the solar perspective and 13 is the lunar view. This idea of mine is, however, only weakly confirmed by solar numbers in A and H:
as contrasted to lunar numbers in P and Q:
Whereas the numbers 41 and 16 in P respectively Q might be explained away as just what is needed to reach 54 respectively 29, that kind of argumentation is not acceptable as a way to explain 40? and 52? in H. 52 is the number of weeks in a year (7 * 52 = 364), but that is a lunar year (13 * 28 = 364). Perhaps we should instead refer to the Mayan 52-year cycle: "[Sahagun:] ... When it was evident that the years lay ready to burst into life, everyone took hold of them, so that once more would start forth - once again - another (period of) fifty-two years. Then (the two cycles) might proceed to reach one hundred and four years. It was called 'One Age' when twice they had made the round, when twice the times of binding the years had come together. Behold what was done when the years were bound - when was reached the time when they were to draw the new fire, when now its count was accomplished. First they put out fires everywhere in the country round. And the statues, hewn in either wood or stone, kept in each man's home and regarded as gods, were all cast into the water. Also (were) these (cast away) - the pestles and the (three) hearth stones (upon which the cooking pots rested); and everywhere there was much sweeping - there was sweeping very clear. Rubbish was thrown out; none lay in any of the houses." (Skywatchers) I do not feel quite comfortable with that explanation either. And 40 does not ring many bells, except perhaps that in my memory I recall Ali Baba and the 40 robbers (in '1001 nights'). There ought to be more 'beauty' in these numbers. Or as the Easter Islanders presumably would formulate it, 'more mana': "If objects are social agents, if they have the power to affect individuals and communities, they do so not only because of the way in which they are used, but also because of their appearance: what they symbolize, how they are made, and what they are made of ... This idea of a power in which the social, spiritual, and political are interwoven is analogous to the Pacific concept of mana, a word carried to all three culture regions of the Pacific by the Lapita and other Austronesian-speaking settlers. One of the few Pacific words adopted into European languages, mana conveys a meaning that depends on the culture. In Polynesia, mana can be the manifestation of the power of the gods in the human world. It is an active force, one associated with and inherited from divine ancestors. It is essential to all human endeavors, to the success of priests, warriors, leaders, and artists ..." (D'Alleva) I went to bed last night frustrated over how this investigation focusing on numbers of glyphs was developing. Early next day - i.e. a few hours past midnight when the double-canoe of life was on its way back - I woke up and saw what was wrong. To explain in the light of the day, I first must point out the fact that in A (the most clearly sun-oriented of the four calendars) there is a lunar dimension - and we shouln't be surprised because there must be a little yin in yang. The three wives of the sun is (I believe) a lunar perspective on the year of the sun (whereas the solar perspective is half-years, or taking one further step: quarters). But the three wives of the sun should have each one 1/3 of the year, and that is exactly what we can read in A. The numbers 12, 24 and 36 refer (I guess) to the 120, 240 and 360 days where there is a change in wife. Developing this thought we can guess that in A the X period refers to the 5 dark nights between two solar years, i.e. winter solstice, that this X period belongs to the new year and that if we count 240 days into the new year we find a major change where sun has to move north over the vast ocean to reach his winter maid, i.e. not at autumn equinox but only 8 months after new year, after which he will remain with the winter maid in 120 days (4 months) and then reach his end. During the 240 first days of the year the sun changes wife at the 120 point (Poike). We can count from the beginning of the X period and as glyph number 12 we indeed find (Aa1-24 - where number 24 once again presumably is a hint for the reader):
the nuahine who lights new fire, i.e. not at summer solstice but only 4 months after new year. This is strange, though, that summer solstice and autumn equinox not are associated with changes in wives. And the nuahine certainly stands at Poike = noon. Something is wrong here. Once again there is that mystical haunting 540 which may give us the explanation. Because if we transpose 120 days into 540 / 360 * 120 we reach 180 and then the nuahine will indeed be located at summer solstice. Then the next wife (the winter maid) is pushed away up to winter solstice 540 / 360 * 240 = 360 which indeed is the right place for her (as in a solar perspective we have only half-years or quarters to refer to). Night is thereby totally expelled from the calendar of the year. We know that even at winter solstice there are several hours during which we can see the sun. There is much mana in 54. But I will not pursue that number any deeper for the moment, the waters are too murky already. Having now come to understand that there are deep waters to investigate, that we cannot just look at the surface, we can proceed with new power to review Q - the opposite, so to say, of the solar A calendar: 29 glyphs talks moon language. Maybe the missing e.m. - where sun is as its hottest and yang so dominant - pushes yin away totally, i.e. stands for the time of new moon, where the moon is invisible? Is the calendar in Q a great yoke? Superficially it looks like the sun calendar in A (where day and year are solar rounds enough similar to be both read about in the calendar, but where we notice signs of the moon too). The mixing of day and year with a touch of moon in the A calendar indicates that we should consider the possibility of mixing in the Q calendar too. New moon = the missing e.m. glyphs. Where is full moon then? We should count ca 14-15 glyphs (nights) from new moon to reach full moon. Glyph no. 14 is Qa5-40:
and it fits well in as signifying the full moon. We suddenly understand the double Y-signs, they must be symbols for the waxing and waning moons. Waxing moon, then, must be the 13 night glyphs and waning moon the 16 - 1 = 15 day glyphs (where we have reserved Qa5-40 for full moon). But wait a minute! 29 glyphs means that one of the glyphs must stand for the dark new moon time - only 28 enlighted moons in a month we have said. I guess this new moon glyph is Qa5-27
the glyph whis stands at the beginning of the Q calendar, quite as it should be considering that a new month is beginning there. In the A calendar where night comes as the last part of the calendar there is no similar glyph, probably because we should not read any month embedded in the A calendar. To make it all more clear, let's make a picture:
Glyph no. 28 above has her tail cut off, which we now can understand: the lunar month is about 29½ nights long and we have in glyph no. 0 covered just the difference between 29 and 28, The remaining difference (½) should be represented by a missing part of a glyph. After glyph no. 28 we arrive at glyph no. zero and the missing part of glyph no. 28 may be explained as not being in the light (not visible). The fraction missing in glyph no. 28 is less than ½. Maybe the number of nights with visible moon is that fraction less than 28? Is it a coincidence that we find henua at multiples of 7 (marked red above)? As for the eating sun (during a.m.) I once asked who fed him the light he needed to grow and guessed at the stars high above. Now, however, the correct explanation - I believe - is that he is being feed by the moon. "The moon, being without food, wanes slowly away from starvation until it is quite lost from sight; then the sun reaches out and feeds it from the dish in which the girl has placed her breast. After the moon is fed and gradually brought to the full, it is then permitted to starve again, so producing the waxing and waning every month." (Arctic Sky) "... a tradition which is still in existence in present-day folklore and the origins of which is surely very ancient ... 'the celestial Puma eats the Moon little by little until the time of the Full Moon [presumably New Moon] and then lets it grow, also little by little, until another Full Moon' ... " (Posnansky) Sun and moon are like communicating vessels, light flows from one to the other and then back again in an everlasting double cycle: ∞ |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
