Read Proskouriakoff's "Pattern of a Series of Dates at Piedras Negras" (see link in course web site, Week 1). After reading and listening to the podcast, write a brief but substantive comment on this post using this prompt: What did the author do to help you visualize the art objects? What was not helpful to you? What left you with questions? Be specific in your answers. Due at least two hours before the next class period (but I would do it now, while you have the reading fresh).
To reiterate, post the answers to these questions in the reader comments section below.
27 comments:
It is obvious that Proskouriakoff knows what she is talking about in this passage. Not only were the images themselves helpful, but her knowledge was as well. Having the man on the podcast explain further what she was trying to prove was extremely interesting and helpful. With that said, I believe I got a lot more clarification of information out of the podcast.
I wish I knew more about the graph on page 456. I was more interested in that since it had to do more with the life span of a human rather than an astronomical reasoning behind it. Personally, I am a visual person and Proskouriakoff kept going on about specifics of the glyphs and since I'm not very familiar with it all, it would have been nice to see specifically what was going on. For example the "Jaguar mat" on page 460, fourth paragraph on the right.
Natalie Steele
Natalie - you have raised a crucial point. Art Historians try very hard to make their writing and their images work together in a convincing way. For one, note that Proskouriakoff often uses drawings (not photographs) to make the details clear and easy to read.
It seems to me you got the major info out of the graph - the argument revolves around the common sense notion that if all the dates seem to cluster around a typical life span, maybe it's humans and not stars you're talking about.
Tatiana Proskouriakoff's Pattern of dates at Piedras Negras.
The illustrations she made of the glyphs helped relate a visual pattern in the Stelas. The graph also helped in understanding a timeline of historical events in a rulers life. The summary of the date intervals really showed a historical documentation of a average life. What was not helpful was the photographs in the article. Some photos displayed poor quality contrast. The article was also very confusing at first about the process of her documentation of the Stela's. Mainly the series of dates and Stelas were confusing. Only later in the discussion and speculation did I understand what she was trying to do. One question is what was the connection between Piedras Negras and the records from other sites? There was not enough information given to understand the records from El Cayo.
The podcast added geometrically to my understanding of Proskouriakoff's article.
From my perspective, I was reading her material in a vacuum - meaning I have had no prior studies of this art. Intially I was overwhelmed with information contained in the reading, and many terms used. However, reading further into the article I found Proskouriakoff's writing concise and methodically organized in clarifying her position.
In the first reading of the article I found the graph of "inscriptions on monuments" confusing, but in conjunction with the podcast the graph became much more meaningful, and very persuasive in supporting her theory.
To be honest it was easier for me to skip over the graphs when I initially read the article. Once I got past the first two pages the information was both interesting and simply laid forth. Even thought I am a very visual person, not looking at the glyphs helped me to focus on what she was saying and not get bogged down with the technicalities of what each glyph could potentially mean. The part of the article that confused me the most was when she started to use a long series of numbers to refer to dates. There seemed to be some date system that she was using or that was determined from the glyphs but it was not explained and that would have been helpful.
The podcast really brought my attention back to the graphs and diagrams and that was helpful to go back through the article and see the parts that I had not concentrated on.
Proskouriakoff's article, Implications of a Pattern of Dates at Piedras Negras, Guatemala, was a very interesting read as well as a well thought out argument. Her use of graphs and recreations of glyphs was extremely helpful to her case. This use of visuals in her paper allows the reader physically see the existing patterns she was arguing.Her graph at first looks extremely complicated but while listening to the podcast and viewing the graph again it made more sense to me.While the drawings of glyphs and the graphs we helpful, the photographs of the steeles were a little ambiguous. I would of like to see them recreated like the glyphs. Overall I really liked her use of visuals in her paper. They helped to cement her argue of Mayan dates being historical opposed to astronomical.
-Jamie Robertson
I like the way that several of you are focusing on the graphs and how they resonated with the reading (or not). Glyphic studies are called epigraphy, and in epigraphy it is critical for the author to "show" the reader the pertinent glyphic patterns. One way to do this is the comparative chart - note how she uses directly comparative phrases to convince you of a pattern.
The BIG picture point here is to think critically about how your illustrations work with your writing to convince the reader of your argument.
What was very confusing for me, was coming into the 'middle' of the article. Or the feeling that I somehow just popped in at the middle of a conversation or speech. I got held up and hotun and kotun, specifically.
Regardless, I am in agreement with Taylor. Better supporting imagery would have helped me with the context of each glyph and consequently their meaning.
I also feel that the podcast helped greatly in my understanding of what Proskouriakoff was arguing for-that the glyphs represented historical versus astronomical data. The key factor for me being her correlation to common lifespans along with the lack of consistency when compared to astrological histories.
What did the author do to help you visualize the art objects? What was not helpful to you? What left you with questions? Be specific in your answers.
I agree with my classmates about the podcast. It was VERY helpful in explaining the graph and date glyphs on pages 456-457. I believe Proskouriakoff purpose of including these two pages was to help the reader see what she was discussing but honestly it just confused me before the podcast. I felt her article was all over the place in the beginning, but toward the end when she was explaining her ideas about glyphs and how they could represent the rulers did it make more sense. I wish the pictures of the actual stelas were clearer. One question I had about the article is how the dates are calculated. For example, how does she know that 3.1.9.0 is equivalent to 60 plus years?
Proskouriakoff's article "Pattern of a Series of Dates at Piedras Negras" is very technicle. I did not understand most of the reading until I listened to the podcast, then, looking back on the reading it all made a lot more sense. However, Proskouriakoff assumes a significant deal of Mayan knowledge from the reader such as the length of time of a Hotun and how stelae are used. As this is a scholarly article this is to be expected but there are other issues that make the article difficult to understand. I really think that when referring to glyphs or a series of glyphs in the text, an image of the glyph or glyphs referenced should probably be on the page somewhere, preferably nearby. The way all of the glyphs were shown on one page was not helpful. Proskouriakoff also sometimes references figures that are 6 pages away. I think that the graph is too crowded and that perhaps the information should have been distributed more or represented differently. I've looked at it multiple times and the more I do the less I'm sure of Proskouriakoff's theory. Under each series is listed a series of "St. #". I assume that St stands for stelae but the numbers following are out of order. This makes it seem like the glyphs may be taken out of context and put in this order to fit the theory that human lifetimes are being represented. Perhaps I'm reading the graph wrong or not fully grasping it. Did anyone else notice this?
In Tatiana Proskouriakoff’s article Historical Implications of a Pattern of Dates at Piedras Negras, Guatemala, Tatiana created beautiful visual images of what the hieroglyphs would look like if we were standing right in front of it. I almost felt as though I had seen it before. When she began to identify what the images were, the whole of the article became slightly more understandable and clarified. I really found the pod cast the most helpful in understanding this article most notably because it brought precision to some lingering questions that I had about dates and how those dates were mapped out on a calendar. The podcast helped me to understand the graphs and the hieroglyphs, where as the first time around I was left with a lot of questions. The use of pictures is almost rendered unnecessary due to their quality; any additional visual support in articles is always greatly appreciated. Reading this article was slightly difficult with no former knowledge of the subject. I feel that as we progress into the semester rereading this later on will help me understand what Tatiana was truly trying to convey in her article and I will be able to pick up some things that still seem unclear.
I had a hard time when I read the article the first time. However, after listening to the podcast, I was able to understand much more and then went through the article again.
Both times I read through the article, the first couple of pages were difficult for me to get through, but once Proskouriakoff began to discuss the meaning of the glyphs, it was very interesting. It really interested me to learn about the lives of the rulers and the history presented in that section. I also had a hard time understanding the long series of numbers that were dates since I had no knowledge of what those numbers meant.
I also had a difficult time with the article before I listened to the podcast. Once I understood the topic from a more general viewpoint it was easier to understand. I do like the detail that Proskouriakoff goes into, specifically page 462-464. Honestly I don't have much knowledge about Mayan art, however when she goes into detail about what the glyphs symbolize was quite fascinating. I do think it would be helpful if the images were a bit clearer so I could see more detail in the images, but that is just nitpicking. I didn't get the graph at all until listening to the podcast, but it made a lot of sense after it was explained. All in all I think this article was a good way to get interested in what we'll be learning this semester.
Proskouriakoff’s article made a most persuasive argument towards the implication of a pattern of dates within the monument glyphs of Piedras Negras. She best helped me to visualize the art objects through her method of verbal comparison. Originally I assumed Proskouriakoff’s visual tools would provide me with the best evidentiary support toward her argument, but I found her graph on page 456 and structural analysis on page 457 difficult to read. While the wordiness of Proskouriakoff’s argument and use of large numeric values felt overwhelming at times, she made sense of the proof that these dates could be historical in nature, as their chronology is approximate to the span of a human life. The podcast in conjunction was most helpful. One area of this article that peaked my curiosity was the mention of tracing family relationships between the represented figures. I would be interested to read further into the dynamics of the succession of rulers within the ancient Maya culture.
I really enjoyed reading the article about the pattern of dates at Piedras Negras but I can’t deny that it was very hard to understand. Although after hearing the podcast it made it a lot easier to follow along with the reading. It is obvious that Proskouriakoff knows what she is talking about, I liked the way how she describes in detail the glyphs and monuments but I think it would have made it a lot easier if there was a single picture of a glyph (big size) with indications of what is what. It was interesting to see the pages with the chart and glyphs but I think it was little overwhelming the amount of glyphs and not being able to understand it all. I really had a hard time with all the series of numbers representing dates and I would like to learn more since I don’t know anything about it.
The feeling of jumping into the explanation late is confusing. The different words that she is using that denote a span of days or years is puzzling because she does not relate the explaining of the equivalent of how many days they are to the word. Once she starts to describe the glyphs without all the mention of the numbers and the different meaning of the dates, it becomes easier to follow the meaning that she is describing, for example the description of the Jaguar pelt that is used in the 25th stela. It would be interesting to find out what the relationship of the certain glyphs that where found in the different locations and what they meant to these places. If it meant that they where related in some way I believe that it would explain much of why these glyphs appear in different areas. The podcast helped a lot in explaining the beginning of the article. I found difficult to understand the article when I first read it, but having heard the podcast I understood the information much better than the first time I read it.
Joshua H.
As straight forward and evenly paced as I found Proskouriakoff's article to be, I found Dr. Koontz' podcast to be of tremendous help in fully formalizing her argument along with familiarizing myself with her position. The initial examination of the graph confused me, but after becoming a little more familiar with Proskouriakoff's date terminology the graph's key became very clear and felt quite organized and helped me to further understand the graph's significance and meaning.
I did find the illustrated glyphs to be exceptionally intriguing, especially when prompted to take a step back to fully discern the use of repeated patterns and their purpose within each separate glyph. It left me in awe, contemplating the linguistic significance these complex illustrations once held for an entire civilization and of Proskouriakoff's ingeniousness in recognizing their importance.
Proskouriakoff is obviously very well versed on Mayan glyphs; however the organization of the material was hard to follow, especially for someone who has no background knowledge on the material. At the beginning of the article I felt as if I was dropped into of a very technical discussion of Mayan writing, which made no sense at all. Many of the terms, such as hotun and katun, I had to look up in order to grasp a better understanding of the information that was being provided. Towards the end of the article she begins to lay out more of the argument; Proskouriakoff is proposing the idea that these glyphs link to historical events, rather than solely astronomical signs which is quite interesting.
The podcast was essential to me, because it was the only way I was able to link her various drawings to the argument she was proposing. By understanding the graphs and glyphs more I could see a much stronger link from her material to the actual argument. Therefore, I do believe she has a very strong argument and excellent support for it.
It may have caused the paper to become longer, but I would suggest including the actual glyph in the text when she is discussing it. Personally, I think that would have been very helpful. In doing such, when she is discussing the specific visual elements of the glyph it is right there to support her interpretation.
I have to agree with some of my class mates on the matter of this article. the material alone was hard to follow if you have no pervious knowledge, although Dr. Knootz's podcast did help extremely to understand better.
Proskouriakoff was noticing a pattern in dates and understanding that there was a historical purpose in nature. Her comparison in what she assumed and her graphs for proof relate to her theory on the initial and anniversaries dates at Piedrass Negras.
Proskouriakoff has set up her theory and argument in both simple and visual manner that it was to obvious to understand. through the article it becomes more and more clear on what she is saying but for me personally that happened because of Dr. Knootz's podcast.
Melanie Lira
Proskouriakoff writing is somewhat difficult to understand. The glyphs and graph were good to basically organize alot of the dates she had explained throughout the article. The podcast was very helpful in breaking down her purpose of the graph and organized glyphs.I had a hard time following her theory which makes me think that to read this article, I may have needed a bit more knowledge about mayans and their historical and astronomical beliefs. I do believe though that after listening to the podcast and looking over the article again, that between the dates on the monuments their seems to be a repetition of dates that last a human life span. Reading about the Stela's and then seeing how she organized them in a graph made sense but wouldn't have without the podcast.
I also had a hard time understanding the glyphs and their meanings before watching the podcast. The article was more difficult to understand for me because it felt like she expected her readers to have more knowledge of the Maya, and I do not. I found the article to be interesting and easier to understand after watching the podcast.
I appreciated how thorough the descriptions were in the article. She writes in such a concise way that it was possible to picture what she was referring to even without seeing the images, though I'm glad there were so many images since it made it easier to stay on track. Her writing was at times hard to follow and felt a bit complicated but the interesting subject matter made it a very informative article. Reading glyphs is quite an art form.
I agree with many of my other classmates. I had a hard time following the article. I felt as though I was reading the words but not getting a clear understanding of them. A lot of the terms were difficult to understand. I do think Proskouriakoff gave good detailed descriptions of the peices and was very thorough in those descriptions, which allowed me to get a better mental picture of the peices she was talking about. I found that the graphs weren't helpful at all if strictly viewing them without the podcast. The podcast helped give the graphs meaning to associate with them. I would have liked for her to better explain her ideas behind the date system and maybe explain it so that others that are not familiar in this area, such as myself can understand.
The author used graphic aides to help visualize the art objects. Although, listening to the podcast helped me understand the graphs better. Such as the one on page 456 in which she outlines the data from major public monuments being done in a normal human life span.
The terminology used stretches me to update my vocabulary. This is helpful, but makes me take longer to read & comprehend the writing.
I was left questioning much. Even after I listened to the podcast. For instance, The reign of the rulers and the events that happened in between vary so much from each other than I wonder if they are ordained or born into the position? If they are ordained do they begin counting at the ordination or did they pass away from something early?
Proskouriakoff recognized that previous efforts at applying interpretations to the Mayan glyphs had failed to adequately enhance the knowledge of the culture they were "written" about. But she took an overwhelming task of reviewing artifacts in various conditions of disrepair (buried, worn and/or broken), and laid them out into several different categories: images, glyphs, location, etc. Her ability to lay out each of these in a simplified format (her artchitecture degree helped in this focus) enabled her to establish the visual patterns to help with her hypothesis. Her eye for detail, patience and focus made this paper so powerful in its persuasion to new thoughts.
I found Prouskouriakoff's immediate jump into the description of the stelae a bit overwhelming; but it was so detailed that I could visualize the art without previous knowledge of it. Some of her information referring to previous research on the subject went over my head but I caught on through her discussion of the stelae in reference to the images/drawings.
I found the podcast was extremely helpful in clarifying these images and added background to her discussion on the glyphs and the theory of the dates involved in comparison to human lifespan.
I also wondered the connection, if any, of the specified recorded glyphs at Piedras Negras to those at other sites?
The Proskouriakoff article describes in great detail several Mayan glyphs. However, I had difficulty understanding until listening to the podcast when I realized that the criteria discussed was well above my knowledge of Mayan glyphs. She almost overly discusses the objects to the point that it was difficult for me to understand in the end if she was talking about the same object. Proskuriakoff obviously knows what she is talking about, but it definitely seems to be written for more knowledgeable Mayan historians.
Post a Comment