Academic literature on the topic 'Names, Tarascan'

Abstract Besides the ubiquitous patolli—a race game played on a cruciform gameboard—the Aztecs had obviously a few other board games. Unfortunately their names have not been recorded. We owe to Diego Durán, writing in the last quarter of the 16th century from local sources, some hints of what appears to be a “war game” and a second, different race game that he calls ‘fortuna’. A close examination of some Precolumbian codices shows a rectangular design with a chequered border, together with beans and gamepieces, which has correctly been interpreted as a board game. Many similar diagrams can be seen carved on stone in temples and public places, from Teotihuacan (c. 4th-7th century AD) to late Toltec times (9th-12th century AD). Of this game too we do not know the name. It has tentatively been called quauhpatolli (“eagle- or wooden-patolli”) by Christian Duverger (1978)—although this seems to have been the classic post-conquest Nahuatl name for the game of chess—or “proto-patolli”, and more concretely “rectángulo de cintas” (rectangle of bands) by William Swezey and Bente Bittman (1983). The lack of any representation of this game in all Postcolumbian codices, as painted by Aztec artists commissioned by Spanish scholars interested in the Aztec culture, is clear indication that the game had disappeared before the Spanish conquest, at least in central Mexico. No Aztec site shows any such gameboard. Fortunately this game had survived until the 20th (and 21st!) century but located in the Tarascan country, now the state of Michoacán. It was discovered, unchanged, in a Tarascan (Purepecha) village by Ralph L. Beals and Pedro Carrasco, who published their find in 1944. At that time Beals and Carrasco had no idea the game was attested in early codices and Teotihuacan to Maya and Toltec archaeological sites. In Purepecha the game is called k’uillichi. There is evidence of an evolution that led to a simplification of the game: less tracks, less gamesmen (in fact only one per player, while k’uillichi has four), and less ‘dice’. From a “complex” race game, the new debased version turned to be a simple single-track race game with no strategy at all. It is possible that this process took place in Michoacán. (A few examples of the simplified game were found in some Tarascan villages.) Also it seems the widespread use of the Nahua language, which the Spanish promoted, led to calling the game, and/or its dice, patol. As it was, patol proved to be very appealing and became very popular in the Mexican West, finally reaching the Noroeste, that is, the present North-West of Mexico and Southwest of the United States. This seems to have been a recent trend, since its progress was observed with much detail by missionaries living in close contact with the Indians along what was called the ‘Camino Real’, the long highway that led from western Mexico to what is now New Mexico in the U.S. The Spanish themselves seem to have helped the game in its diffusion, unaware of its presence. It is clearly with the Spaniards that the patol game, sometimes also called quince (fifteen), reached the American Southwest and settled in the Pueblo and the Zuñi countries. It is there that some newcomers, coming from the North or from the Great Plains, and getting in contact with the Pueblos in the 18th century, found the game and took it over. The Kiowas and Kiowa Apaches are noted for their zohn ahl (or tsoñä) game, while the Arapahos call it ne’bäku’thana. A careful examination of zohn ahl shows that it has kept the basic features of an ancient game that came—in Spanish times—from Mexico and may have been popular in Teotihuacan times. Its spread northward—through the Tarascan country—is, hopefully, well documented.

Mariusz Hermansdorfer (1940–2018) passed away in Wrocław on the 18th of August this year. He was a director of the National Museum in Wrocław in the years 1983–2013, custodian of the contemporary art department of this museum from 1972, critic, curator of exhibitions, one of the most significant figures in Polish Culture of the past half-century. Born in Lviv, he studied art history at the University of Wrocław. While still at university, he started working for the Silesian Museum (since 1970 named the National Museum). In 1967, he moved to the branch of the Municipal Museum of Wrocław – the Museum of Current Art, which at the time was getting ready for its opening. There he worked together with Jerzy Ludwiński, one of their achievements being the memorable Fine Arts Symposium Wrocław ’70, and was engaged in the activity of the Mona Lisa Gallery run by Ludwiński. He returned to the National Museum in 1972, and became a custodian of the contemporary art department up to his retirement in 2013. There he created, starting practically from scratch, one of the best collections of Polish contemporary art in the country, abundant in works of such artists as Magdalena Abakanowicz, Tadeusz Brzozowski, Edward Dwurnik, Józef Gielniak, Władysław Hasior, Józef Hałas, Maria Jarema, Jerzy Kalina, Tadeusz Kantor, Jan Lebenstein, Natalia LL, Jerzy Nowosielski, Jerzy Rosołowicz, Jonasz Stern, Jan Tarasin and many others. The predominant artists of this collection were those of metaphor and expression. From the mid-1970s he was a curator of Polish presentations at international art festivals – in Cagnessur- Mer, São Paulo and New Delhi. He used to organise exhibitions from museum collections in Germany, Great Britain, the United States and the Netherlands. As an art critic he was writing mainly for the monthly “Odra”; in 1990 he became a member of its Editorial Board. The writings of Mariusz Hermansdorfer can also be found in catalogues and scholarly publications of the National Museum in Wrocław.

Tipologinis Nikolajaus Gogolio kūrybos bendrumas su baroko kultūros tekstais buvo nustatytas anksčiau, nei pradėti ukrainiečių baroko bei jo įtakos Gogoliui tyrinėjimai. Pastarieji atspindėjo baroko problematikos raidą per visą XX amžių. Michailo Jampolskio veikale Audėjas ir regėtojas: reprezentacijos istorijos apy­braižos (2007) Gogolis pristatomas kaip klasikinės re­prezentacijos kritikas baroko, kurio supratimas remiasi Michel Foucault, Gilles Deleuze ir kitų, dvasia.Straipsnio tikslas – pademonstruoti Gogolio pasau­lėžiūros ir vaizduotės artimumą Deleuze’o atkurtam Leibnizo baroko pasauliui, remiantis stepės peizažo iš apysakos „Tarasas Bulba“ analize. Deleuze’as yra pasiūlęs universalų baroko požymį, pagal kurį baro­kas gali būti atpažįstamas ir peržengiant istorines jo epochos ribas. Tai – klostės, kurias barokas suklosto ir sutvarko į du aukštus – materijos ir dvasios. Dviejų aukštų namas – tai barokinio pasaulio modelis, sujun­giantis absoliučiai skirtingas esmes. Barokinės klostės nėra abstrakčios. Jas galima matyti barokinėje tapybo­je, skulptūroje, architektūroje ir t. t. Svarbiausia, kad Deleuze‘as pademonstruoja, kaip artimai barokinio meno vaizdiniai yra susiję su Leibnizo pasaulio vaizdu, o interpretuodamas baroko kūrinius Leibnizo filosofijos kontekste, sukuria barokinės klostės metodologiją.Anot Jurijaus Lotmano, peizažas, kurį matome pro langą, skiriasi nuo nutapyto ant drobės tuo, kad pirmasis suvokiamas kaip didesnės visumos dalis, o antrasis – kaip uždara struktūra, universalus objektas, pasaulio modelis. Dėl didelės vizualinių menų įtakos formuojantis Gogolio vaizduotei, bet kuris jo peizažas yra artimesnis tapybai, nei literatūrai būdingam psi­chologizuotam gamtos aprašymui. Todėl jo peizažai yra patogi priemonė išsiaiškinti meninio mąstymo ir vaizduotės ypatybes.Aprašydamas stepę Gogolis nuolat kaitalioja ra­kursus, parodydamas ją tai iš aukštai ir iš tolo, tai pri­artėdamas prie mažiausių jos detalių (gėlių, vabzdžių). Stepės plotai vaizduojami nuosekliai naudojant visų gamtos gaivalų įvaizdžius, kurie metonimiškai ir meta­foriškai persipina, kurdami bendrą milžiniškos judrios masės įspūdį. Nors kalbama apie sausumą, aprašyme dominuoja okeano/bangos izotopija, kurią galima aiš­kinti kaip barokinės klostės variaciją. Naktinės stepės reprezentacija regimuosius įspūdžius perpina su kitų juslių – klausos, lietimo, uoslės – informacija. Tokiu būdu artėjama prie sinestezijos, kuri yra tiek baroko, tiek šiuolaikinių menų sintezės rezultatas. Aprašymo subjektas nėra lygus sau pačiam: viena vertus, jis – tas, kuris išgyvena gamtos harmoniją ir gieda ditirambus stepei, kita vertus, jis nepriklauso šiai harmonijai, stebi ją iš šalies ir savo susižavėjimą išreiškia, nusikeikdamas („velniai griebtų tave, stepe, kokia tu graži!“). Subjekto požiūrio sudvejinimas – pagrindinis aprašymo įvykis, perkeliantis dėmesį nuo objekto (stepės) prie ją aprašan­čio subjekto, t. y. požiūrio taško. Aprašymo siužetu ga­lima laikyti požiūrio taškų kaitą, kuri išryškina subjekto virtualumą ir daugybės pasaulių viename galimybę. Tai barokinis Leibnizo pasaulis, kurio vieningumą užtikrina barokinė projekcija iš viršaus žemyn. Šios projekcijos dėka pasaulis įgyja formą ir kryptį, būdingus kūgiui, piramidei ar kupolui. Gogolio pasakojimas remiasi perspektyva iš viršaus žemyn, kuri sukuria būtent to­kios formos pasaulio vaizdą. Stepės peizaže panaudotų barokinių priemonių visuma rodo naujos harmonijos, paremtos kūno pojūčių sinestezija, siekimą.