“Signs of life”
2000 B C?
Didn’t we decide the Biblical Flood and ship based dispersion from Mesopotamia was around 2000 to 2500 BC?
Is there any reason for them to be in such a place other than to observe the stars?
Get their clocks realigned after a long trip?
It is kind of like, until Hubble, we put the telescopes on the highest, out of the atmosphere, hills we could find.
You want “wheels within wheels”, these guys calendar just gets deeper and more complex as we learn more.
260 day cycle equals gestation, but worked into 365 point xxxxx days in a year?
Fertility worship mixed into star/sun worship?
Mesoamerican Archaeology
Moderators: MichelleH, Minimalist, JPeters
http://www.spiderorchid.com/mesoamerica/mesoamerica.htm
Strange.The Mayan Ritual year of 260 days was successful for one major reason - after a cycle lasting 59 Ritual years, the tropical year and the Ritual year lock together in step. A period of 59 by 260 days equals a period of 42 tropical years, of 365.242 days.
-
Forum Monk
- Posts: 1999
- Joined: Wed Dec 27, 2006 5:37 pm
- Location: USA
Beags - I'm not sure how I missed this post but I missed it completely. Seems interesting but I need time to study it.Beagle wrote:http://www.spiderorchid.com/mesoamerica/mesoamerica.htm
Strange.The Mayan Ritual year of 260 days was successful for one major reason - after a cycle lasting 59 Ritual years, the tropical year and the Ritual year lock together in step. A period of 59 by 260 days equals a period of 42 tropical years, of 365.242 days.
Erm, my figures actually produce 73 cycles of the Tonalpohualli calendar (260) days to every 52 solar years (or Xiuhpohualli), not counting the 13 intercalary days (nauhtetl) which compensated for the leap year. I could be wrong but I believe this calendar also aligned itself with the Venus cycle (8 years?) so that both calendars and Venus all returned to the same point every Xiuhmolpilli (or 'Great Age') of 104 years. Should check this but I just got in from work and I'm too knackered to stand. This is the central Mexican version, rather than the Mayan by the way, but the principle is the same. According to Gordon Brotherston, there were other cycles involving the sidereal year and the planet Mercury, but from what I've read, the maths is horribly complicated, as is the reading of such info from indigenous texts, so I'm happy to just assume that GB knows what he's talking about in this instance.
-
Forum Monk
- Posts: 1999
- Joined: Wed Dec 27, 2006 5:37 pm
- Location: USA
I think a calendar that does not sychronize with either lunar or stellar cycles over a lifetime is not a very useful calendar and is certainly not good at planning future activities. If the calender is based on solar cycles it must have compensation for the 1/4 of a day per year slip. Those fractions add up to significance within a generation. Nevertheless, in a system which does not recognize fractional numbers there are many many clever solutions to time tracking which makes up for the disadvantage of integer-only number systems. As an example, I invite you to study the Hebrew lunar calendar and you will find the system was remarkably accurate with a one day error in something on the order of a 1000 years.
Following this discussion it is very difficult to fathom without going deeper into understanding as you seem to be doing War Arrow. So I seem inclined to do so also just so I can speak intelligently about the subject. Can you tell then, is the Mayan the original model of these calendric systems or should I look at another as the foundation?
Following this discussion it is very difficult to fathom without going deeper into understanding as you seem to be doing War Arrow. So I seem inclined to do so also just so I can speak intelligently about the subject. Can you tell then, is the Mayan the original model of these calendric systems or should I look at another as the foundation?
Firstly, according to Gordon Brotherston (and I trust his judgement) the Mexica calendar is not only a great deal more accurate than I ever realised (I knew the 260 day calendar worked, but the 365 one seems vague in some records, to an untrained eye as was mine up until maybe a week ago), but also far more sophisticated than I imagined. The problem has been recognising Mexica style pictograms as carrying any significance beyond the most basic and pictorial. GB goes into detail on seemingly dubious elements like the number of feathers depicted on the headdress of a God allied to a certain page and comes up with a number, then does this again and again and comes up with so many overwhelmingly accurate numbers (relating to solar, sidereal, lunar etc years) that his argument blows one's doubts out of the water - and I'm talking minutiae here, like recognition of 12 hours lost in the Mexica calendar between 1521 and the 1583 Gregorian reform. It also seems likely that the Mexica recorded much larger periods of time (comparable to the Maya) although records of these are thin on the ground and not immediately recognisable as such.
Actually I wish I understood more but I've never had a great head for figures so some of this is hard to keep track of.
As for the Mayan calendar, it certainly predates the Mexica one, though I understood it lacked a leap year mechanism. The same has been said of the Mexica equivalent though this is patently untrue, so I seriously doubt the Maya had no leap year correlation, particularly given that their calendar seems better understood, and was (again according to GB) in exact sychronisation with the Mexica version at the time of the conquest (ie- the same or equivalent day-signs falling on the same day despite the great geographical distance between the respective cultures). The Mexica intercalary day appears to have had no name and no part in the various cycles of time, which would therefore have been suspended twenty-four hours whillst the Earth caught up, if that makes sense = hence bloody hard to find it in any records, except (GB argues) page 9 of Codex Mexicanus.
To get more to the point, the Mayan calendar is (I think) developed from the earlier Olmec one (we have Olmec dates on stelae, but not a great deal else) which according to the Maya began in the year 3113 BCE. the Mayan calendar has been fairly extensively studied, and is probably the oldest Mesoamerican system for which we have any level of detail. I'm not sure it's quite identical to the later Mexica version, but the differences are possibly nowhere near as significant as the shared elements. I think there's been a fair amount published on the Mayan calendar, but if you want to risk a shot at the thing I've been reading it's called Feather Crown: The Eighteen Feasts of the Mexica Year by Grordon Brotherston* (British Museum Press, 2005 - British Museum Research Publication No. 154) - I saw it on Amazon last time I looked. It was mainly the maths that gave me such a hard (although worthwhile) time, although you appear to have a better head for such things and may not find it so daunting.
Jesus. Sorry to ramble on.
* = also large chapter dealing with tracking particular constellations and their gradual drift against the solar year.
Actually I wish I understood more but I've never had a great head for figures so some of this is hard to keep track of.
As for the Mayan calendar, it certainly predates the Mexica one, though I understood it lacked a leap year mechanism. The same has been said of the Mexica equivalent though this is patently untrue, so I seriously doubt the Maya had no leap year correlation, particularly given that their calendar seems better understood, and was (again according to GB) in exact sychronisation with the Mexica version at the time of the conquest (ie- the same or equivalent day-signs falling on the same day despite the great geographical distance between the respective cultures). The Mexica intercalary day appears to have had no name and no part in the various cycles of time, which would therefore have been suspended twenty-four hours whillst the Earth caught up, if that makes sense = hence bloody hard to find it in any records, except (GB argues) page 9 of Codex Mexicanus.
To get more to the point, the Mayan calendar is (I think) developed from the earlier Olmec one (we have Olmec dates on stelae, but not a great deal else) which according to the Maya began in the year 3113 BCE. the Mayan calendar has been fairly extensively studied, and is probably the oldest Mesoamerican system for which we have any level of detail. I'm not sure it's quite identical to the later Mexica version, but the differences are possibly nowhere near as significant as the shared elements. I think there's been a fair amount published on the Mayan calendar, but if you want to risk a shot at the thing I've been reading it's called Feather Crown: The Eighteen Feasts of the Mexica Year by Grordon Brotherston* (British Museum Press, 2005 - British Museum Research Publication No. 154) - I saw it on Amazon last time I looked. It was mainly the maths that gave me such a hard (although worthwhile) time, although you appear to have a better head for such things and may not find it so daunting.
Jesus. Sorry to ramble on.
* = also large chapter dealing with tracking particular constellations and their gradual drift against the solar year.
http://news.independent.co.uk/world/ame ... 135400.ece
A difficult issue regarding ownership of Chichen Itza. It doesn't sound like a place I would want to visit at present.Since being named as one of the Seven New Wonders of the World, the Mayan temple has been the focus of an ownership dispute between a local family and those who want it to be returned to the people. David Usborne reports from Yucatá*
Published: 07 November 2007
Even before the sun has begun to heat the pale stones of the Temple of Kukulkan pyramid and the adjacent Great Ball Court, the daily invasion of the Chichen Itza, the archeological jewel in the heart of Mexico's Yucatá* peninsula that – 1,000 years ago – was one of the largest city-states of the Mayan world, has begun.
Not yet been that far east but the idea of it suddenly being overrun with folks selling trinkets seems a bit odd - as in I thought it was already like that. There's plenty of them hanging around Teotihuacan and some of them can be a real pain and I can't believe Chichen has been entirely peaceful up until now. Mind you, an American woman told me the Mexico trinket-selling brigade are a breeze compared to what you get in Egypt.Beagle wrote:http://news.independent.co.uk/world/ame ... 135400.ece
A difficult issue regarding ownership of Chichen Itza. It doesn't sound like a place I would want to visit at present.Since being named as one of the Seven New Wonders of the World, the Mayan temple has been the focus of an ownership dispute between a local family and those who want it to be returned to the people. David Usborne reports from Yucatá*
Published: 07 November 2007
Even before the sun has begun to heat the pale stones of the Temple of Kukulkan pyramid and the adjacent Great Ball Court, the daily invasion of the Chichen Itza, the archeological jewel in the heart of Mexico's Yucatá* peninsula that – 1,000 years ago – was one of the largest city-states of the Mayan world, has begun.
This kind of comes back to the guy in Italy with all the artifacts.
But in this case a legally privately owned artifact.
Who do they belong to? The land owner or the “people?”
I vote with the land owner.
For sure in this case where they can produce a title to the land.
“You want to study the place? Fine. Pay me, just like anyone else. Oh, and by the way, don’t get in the way of the other paying people.”
I think we have places like this here in the states where you can pay a daily fee and go dig for dinosaur bones, or for diamonds, or what ever. An Emerald pit is even on a National Park site, if memory serves me right.
And if you find something important, what is wrong with sharing the fame with the guy who owns it?
Anybody here ever been to Ruby Falls in Tennessee?
Neat place with some interesting geology to be seen. But you have to pay your fee and ride the crowded elevator, just like everyone else if you want to see it.
A counter to the “frees access” argument is that those admittance fees have put 3 generations of kids through collage. And if you know the area where it is at, you know there is no way they could have gone otherwise.
But in this case a legally privately owned artifact.
Who do they belong to? The land owner or the “people?”
I vote with the land owner.
For sure in this case where they can produce a title to the land.
“You want to study the place? Fine. Pay me, just like anyone else. Oh, and by the way, don’t get in the way of the other paying people.”
I think we have places like this here in the states where you can pay a daily fee and go dig for dinosaur bones, or for diamonds, or what ever. An Emerald pit is even on a National Park site, if memory serves me right.
And if you find something important, what is wrong with sharing the fame with the guy who owns it?
Anybody here ever been to Ruby Falls in Tennessee?
Neat place with some interesting geology to be seen. But you have to pay your fee and ride the crowded elevator, just like everyone else if you want to see it.
A counter to the “frees access” argument is that those admittance fees have put 3 generations of kids through collage. And if you know the area where it is at, you know there is no way they could have gone otherwise.
Me also, particularly as the people for whom the Mexican government are claiming to speak (ie - Mexicans in general) aren't going to be any better or worse off by it being government owned. The Mexican government seem to have a long history of suddenly deciding what's theirs.kbs2244 wrote:This kind of comes back to the guy in Italy with all the artifacts.
But in this case a legally privately owned artifact.
Who do they belong to? The land owner or the “people?”
I vote with the land owner.
-
Minimalist
- Forum Moderator
- Posts: 16033
- Joined: Mon Sep 26, 2005 1:09 pm
- Location: Arizona
The Mexican government seem to have a long history of suddenly deciding what's theirs.
True of most governments.
No man's life, liberty, or property are safe while the legislature is in session.
Mark Twain
Something is wrong here. War, disease, death, destruction, hunger, filth, poverty, torture, crime, corruption, and the Ice Capades. Something is definitely wrong. This is not good work. If this is the best God can do, I am not impressed.
-- George Carlin
-- George Carlin
http://www.earthtimes.org/articles/show/138427.html
This will be an interesting story to follow. WA can probably tell us more about this king as he is hopefully found.Scientists hope to uncover the tomb of King Ahuizotl, who reigned from 1486-1502.
The monolith and the possible tomb were found a year ago in the area known as Las Ajaracas, a spot where the new official residence of the Mexico City mayor is being built.
Upon detecting the archaeological remains, the government donated the land to INAH to explore.
The colonial structures erected by the Spaniards over Tenochtitlan, the Aztec capital, are also of historical value, and so they were never removed to allow excavations there until one of those buildings had to be torn down after suffering severe damage in the massive earthquake of 1985.
According to the INAH communique, scientists performed a three-dimensional underground probe of the site using a scanner with the collaboration of a team from the University of Ferrara, Italy, and aided by Japanese experts from Nagoya University.
Leonardo Lopez Lujan, the director of INAH's Templo Mayor Project, said that with the studies, scientists expect to confirm the thesis that the tomb of Ahuizotl - the last Aztec king before the Spanish conquest - is located there.
Thanks foir posting that link. I wish they'd say quite where they're digging - I might know the place, also some pgotos etc. Hmmm. Just getting impatient. May have mentioned this elsewhere but there's an account of Ahuizotl's burial (and the stuff buried with him) in Diego Duran's Historia - admittedly written nearly 80 years after the event, though Duran certainly based some of the Historia on a lost earlier text (generally dubbed Cronica X) so Duran's account might not necessarily be inaccurate. The guy seemed like a good egg, generally.
I've come across a general theory that the figure of a minimum 20,000 sacrificed at Ahuizotl's coronation (1487) may be a gross exagerration resulting either from Mexica tendency to mythologise and exaggerate their past OR hispanic tendency to overemphasise bloody nature of the indigenous past. I think there's a hotly contested consensus (amongst some) of the figure being closer to 4,000 - the admittedly circular arguments being that such a vast body count would have left more evidence than purely written or oral histories, unless of course a culture so dedicated to large scale sacrifice had evolved a very thorough means of disposing of all the bodies - which is equally probable I guess.
Sigh. Those were the days.
I've come across a general theory that the figure of a minimum 20,000 sacrificed at Ahuizotl's coronation (1487) may be a gross exagerration resulting either from Mexica tendency to mythologise and exaggerate their past OR hispanic tendency to overemphasise bloody nature of the indigenous past. I think there's a hotly contested consensus (amongst some) of the figure being closer to 4,000 - the admittedly circular arguments being that such a vast body count would have left more evidence than purely written or oral histories, unless of course a culture so dedicated to large scale sacrifice had evolved a very thorough means of disposing of all the bodies - which is equally probable I guess.
Sigh. Those were the days.
http://www.journalnow.com/servlet/Satel ... 7645509005
A Mayan maritime community. This article is interesting but there's not enough about the seafaring.Tulum has endured lots of hurricanes since the Maya staked their turf - as early as A.D. 564, by some accounts. The city reached its peak around A.D.1200, having established an impressive and bustling society and a primary trading route on land and on sea. Its maritime commerce was conducted by wealthy traders in large ocean-going canoes, and artifacts found there indicate that they did business all over the Yucatan peninsula and up into Central America. Their achievements included astronomy, celestial navigation and weather forecasting. And among their architectural contributions was the addition of sculpture to the facade of buildings.