Hukay

4Dy-Liaccosense, even when considering the celestial landscape. Thus, for example,in the world that was created at Chichen Itza, the equinoctial sun attains asignificance that is explained in full only cosmologically. There the sunand its motion were made a part of or were incorporated into the materialmedium, just as artefacts, structures, and sacred mountains areincorporated into the material medium of human traditions. The result isan “astral landscape.” Minus that material incorporation, the equinoctialMaya sun would not have quite the impression that it does upon thehuman mind.The significance of this third basic principle for the concept of“total history” is immediate. Different cultures that share the sameobjective landscape may recognise that landscape—that is, “create” it—indifferent ways. Indeed, when these cultures look at the same object in thatlandscape, not only cultural values but entire cosmologies may clash. Thisinsight in turn suggests that from the point of view of mentalité, thecategories of space-time in “total history” cannot be populated bymaterial objects defined in a categorical manner, with definitions ordescriptions applying equally across cultures. Indeed, historians havealready recognised that a multiplicity of conflicting interpretive memoriesexist intra-culturally as well. E.g., see the discussion of the issue inConfino (1997).This point is especially true when applied to the material contextof the Book of Revelation. As I shall show, the comet that inspired theproclamation of Caesar’s divinity in one tradition became, in its materialiconography, the inspiration for a heavenly but unholy beast in anothertradition. Moreover, the notion that no Jews or Christians ever engaged insky reading turns out simply not to be true. 1 Thus what has populatedeach level of space-time for each culture must be discovered by theresearcher; it cannot simply be received from that culture’s current selfview.As seen, ancient texts in themselves are not enough to uncover theancient world; one must go to the material landscape itself. Thatlandscape yields an irreplaceable understanding of the ancient “reality” ofwhich the texts are only partial reflections. Thus materiality theorysuggests not only a cognitive, but also a heuristic (or, loosely speaking,scientific) approach within the framework of “total history.” In thisapproach, no presumed “memory” of the past is off limits to critical1The study of early Jewish and Christian astrology is relatively new, yet the literatureis already quite large. For the classic article in the field, see Charlesworth (1977).