It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by stereologist
reply to post by superman2012
They did not predict the coming of the Spanish. The Mayan civilization ended before the Spanish arrived - by a few centuries.Good enough for you?
There you go finding that the descendants of the civilization were alive then and also are alive today.
The Mayan civilization had collapsed hundreds of years before the arrival of the Spanish.
The year 2012 was based on the long count calendar. This thread is about a non-GMT correlation. Guess what? The civilization using the long count was long gone by the time the Spanish arrived.
Do you understand what I am telling you? There is a difference between the civilization and the descendants. Yes there were Mayan cities. The people did not die out. The society changed.
Think of it this way, the Roman Empire collapsed on the west by the 5th century, but that did not mean that there not Roman cities well after that date.
If you read the subject you will learn that the Mayan civilization began to collapse by the 8th or 9th century. The civilization broke down into city-states.
The people conquered by the Spanish had not used the long count calendar for centuries. 2012 is about the long count calendar. Right? This Sunday date is about the long count calendar. The long count went out of use sometime during the break down of the Mayan civilization into the city state society encountered by the Spanish.
No, no, no my dear friend. Elements of Mayan civilization collapsed, yes. But not the whole civilization as you eluded to in your previous post.
That is akin to saying that the Gregorian calendar was introduced in 1582. Well now, that is in the past, and we don't live like those antiquated people, therefore it is wrong. PS- they used it.
Sitler said. "That's because that calendar fell into disuse a thousand years ago."
To be honest, I don't think you know what you are trying to say. We are not the same civilization as in the 1500's, but, we are still a civilization. We have made advances, changing our civilization. It doesn't cease to be a civilization. It might help you to try to think of it as a 'living entity' that constantly evolves. Society always changes.
Now are you trying to say government and civilization are one and the same? If you are, you are wrong.
Yes, that is why I agreed with you on the first point. The Mayan civilization didn't collapse though, it changed, as all civilizations do.
As Van Stone argues: “It seems that different schools of time‐reckoning existed in different city‐states. These were proud, squabbling polities, constantly jockeying for power like Athens and Sparta. When one thinks about it, it seems much more likely that they would have competing mythologies and scientific systems, than that they would have been of one accord.”
one day - kin 20 days - uinal 360 days - tun 7,200 days - katun 144,000 days - baktun
You can side step the arguments all you want. Still waiting for your sources. While you search for them, here is an elementary explanation of their calendar. You will notice on that site that the long count calendar is divided into 5 distinct units.
So, you say they didn't use the long count calendar even though it included days?
This is a good example of arguing when you don't completely understand the topic. Don't worry, I'm not an expert either, not even close.
PS- It wasn't meant to be a straw man argument, just merely trying to point out that your analogy was way off the mark and made no sense in regards to your supposed point.
Originally posted by stereologist
reply to post by superman2012
You can side step the arguments all you want. Still waiting for your sources. While you search for them, here is an elementary explanation of their calendar. You will notice on that site that the long count calendar is divided into 5 distinct units.
I know about the long count. I already included sources saying it was out of use. Please go back and read.
So, you say they didn't use the long count calendar even though it included days?
Another pointless straw man argument. ... sigh
This is a good example of arguing when you don't completely understand the topic. Don't worry, I'm not an expert either, not even close.
I've repeatedly pointed out that the long count is simply a count of days.
PS- It wasn't meant to be a straw man argument, just merely trying to point out that your analogy was way off the mark and made no sense in regards to your supposed point.
No excuses please. You posted a straw man argument.
The fact is simple. The long count was long out of use. Read the source I posted - a real archaeologist.
Simple fact. You have not proven your position and your repeated used of "straw man argument" and "fudge this and that" have shown that you do not want to address any of the original questions posed of you. I get it. I have come to expect this of you. Unless you have verified sources (no blogs and no setting up your own website) please allow that either argument can be possible. I don't want to have to waste all my time explaining things to you like when I had to explain the jet stream and how it worked for you
Discrepancies in long count dates from the Classic period now suggest to archaeologists that the long count calendar was not standardized across all of the Mayan cities.
Originally posted by stereologist
reply to post by superman2012
The source is very clearly archaeologists. So please spare all of the whining.
It's very clear that with the collapse of the Mayan civilization so too was the long count calendar dropped.
Since you obviously did not read the posted material I see no reason to continue this discussion with you.
You sure showed me with such strong language.