The article that I link in this entry certainly won’t solve the issue and is, in many ways, nothing essentially new (despite the presence of a couple of new analyses), but I felt compelled to write it after I realised that, in a way, it is possible to theoretically reconcile both of the major perspectives in the debate (which could be vaguely named “semasiography” and “grammatology”) if different theoretical referents are used, specially non-traditional linguistics. While the field of Maya epigraphy has tended towards convergence and a state of consensus regarding the fundamentals, non-Maya writing systems have been the centre of a heated debate that will previsible continue unabated in the coming years. Ever since Ignace Gelb commited the double mistake of relegating both Aztec and Maya writing to the category of “limited systems” or “precursors of writing” (1963 : 51-59), scholars have extensively discussed on the nature of Mesoamerican writing systems, disagreeing more often than not. The discussion regarding the definition of writing, and of what Mesoamerican systems can teach us about writing in general, is fascinating, difficult, and somewhat pricklish.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |