2012?

105 inlägg · 10 115 visningar i originalets statistik · Gå till senaste inlägget

2011-01-01 02:34:48#41

Citat av Ranger
Nej men skaparna av Maya-kalender, alltså maya-indianerna ditt ljushuvud

De har inte heller sagt något sådant. Vi har endast gjort tolkningar ifrån kalendern, och där har de inte skrivit om någon förändring.

Senast ändrat 2011-01-01 02:37:11

2011-01-01 02:35:42#42

Jag vet! Men sluta då skriva att "Maya-kalendern" Säger detta, eller "Maya-kalendern" skriver detta.

2011-01-01 20:54:25#43

vet inte om någon har skrivit det men hört att det ligger någon komet eller nått sånt crap ute i rymden o var beräknat att träffa jorden ca 2029, dock så är det så att personen som sa det till mig är en sån som gärna drar upp saker som inte stämmer :P så aaa, det med att maya-kalendern tar slut så gör jorden det... hmm, min teori är att de fick en snilleblixt när de skrev den o tänkte "eh vafan vi kommer inte leva då ändå så låt dom fixa resten" eller så var de bara lata eller vill jävlas o skrämma folk :o

2011-01-03 08:50:35#44

men liksom kalendern tog slut då......och dom var inte synska hur skulle dom kunna se att jorden gick under då det fick kanske inte plats med fler år ^^jag har ingen aning om en komet som träffar jorden 2029 men det kommer ingen som kommer träffa jorden 2012 vet jag iaf det var ju skitsnack om att allt internet och alla datorer skulle krascha år 2000 några kraschade ju men inte mer än vanligt XD

Logga in för att svara i tråden.

Laddar forumet…

2011-01-03 13:59:39#50

Ok, tänkte att ända sättet att få ordning på er och sluta med tramsigt "jag tror världen går under 2012 hahahaha" var att läsa på och ge folk fakta, min personliga åsikt i frågan är dock att vi borde dra av en helvetes fest då, det händer ju trots allt bara en gång vart 400 år att vi har ett skifte av b'ak'tun... kortversionen; Mayas långa kalender "började", inte på noll, men på 13.0.0.0.0, och i slutet av december (20:de ger 12.19.19.17.19, och 21:a 13.0.0.0.0) 2012: kommer att nå 13.0.0.0.0 igen för första gången på 5.125 år, som en klocka som slår midnatt. Om du anser att Maya ansåg att denna återkommande som betydande, snarare än en slump, så kanske de också trodde kommande dag under 2012 kan förebåda en ny "skapelse". (enligt Maya lever vi i den fjärde världen och den tredje "tog slut" 12.19.19.17.19) Långversionen; (Får ta den på engelska då den är original texten kopierad.) "They had a 365-day solar calendar with months and days like ours, commonly known as theHaab. This calendar they shared with other Mesoamerican peoples; for example, the Aztecs, who called it Xiupohualli ("year-count"). Note that to both Mesoamericans and moderns, this is acyclical calendar: your birthday, for example, comes around every year, as does Tax Time, planting, harvest, and Christmas. The first full day of the Maya Haab is 1 Pohp, for example; in 2009-2011, it falls on 4 April. (However, Pohp officially begins on the previous day [or perhaps evening], the "seating" of Pohp, a day whose authority is shared by Pohp and the previous "month," Wayeb.) They also had a nine-day cycle we call "Lords of the Night," which rotated like our days of the week. We refer to these little-understood days as the G-glyphs: G1, G2, etc. The most ancient and widespread Mesoamerican calendar was the sacred 260-day Tzolk'in("count of days") called by the Aztecs Tonalpohualli ("count of destiny"), with its concurrently-cycling 13 numerical coefficients and 20 names (like Manik' or "Deer," Ok or "Dog," Ik' or "Wind," etc.). An example of a Tzolk'in date would be 4 Ajaw in Maya, or 2-Acatl/2-Reed in Aztec. The Maya expressed most dates as a combination of the Tzolk'in and Haab , such as "4 Ajaw 8 Kumk'u." This combination, called a Calendar Round or CR, is not unique in time, it cycles every 52 years. However, for most historical contexts it would do; most people will see only one example of any given CR in their lifetimes. Among the Aztecs, 52 years was the age to retire. But the calendar we are concerned with here was the Long Count. It works much like our modern year-count (AD 1492 or 2009 or 2012), totaling up the days since an arbitrary "zero date," sometimes called "Era Date:" 11 (or 13) August 3114 BC/BCE. In its simplest form (in Late Formative monuments around the time of Christ, and in the Dresden Codex around the Conquest), a Long Count date was written as a five-digit (vigesimal) numeral, which we conventionally render like this: 9.7.17.12.14, or 9.14.0.0.0, for example. During the Classic period, these numbers almost never stood alone: A Long Count date like the first, from the La Esperanza or Chinkultik' Ballcourt Marker, was actually written something like: "Tziik-Haab-?? ("The Count of Years, [presided over by the?] 'patron' of [the month] Xul"):" "9 Pik ("bundles" of 400 years)," "7 Winikhaab ("20-years")," "17 Haab ("years")," "12 Winik ("persons" or "months" of 20 days)," "14 K'in ("suns" or "days"),…" So it keeps track of elapsed time since the "Creation" or "Era Date" on 4 Ajaw 8 Kumk'u back in 3114 BC/BCE. One might think that this calendar were linear, not cyclic at all, except that the Maya consistently recorded the "Era Date" in question as 13.0.0.0.0, not the 0.0.0.0.0, we should have expected. Dates during the previous Era they render (at Palenque, for instance) as 12.x.x.x.x, clearly indicating that they considered the clock running up to Era Date as counting a previous 5125-year cycle, which for some reason was reset when the top digit reached 13, rather than continuing up to 20. This mysterious resetting of the clock to "zero," when it reached 13 Pik back in the 32nd century BC, forms the entire basis for the belief that when it reaches 13 again, something awesome will happen. This conjecture was first voiced four decades ago by the very reputable Michael D. Coe, in his first edition ofThe Maya (1966): "The idea of cyclical creations and destructions is a typical feature of Mesoamerican religions, as it is of Oriental. The Aztec, for instance, thought that the universe had passed through four such ages, and that we were now in the fifth, to be destroyed by earthquakes. The Maya thought along the same lines, in terms of eras of great length, like the Hindu kalpas. There is a suggestion that each of these measured 13 baktuns, or something less than 5,200 years, and that Armageddon would overtake the degenerate peoples of the world and all creation on the final day of the thirteenth. Thus, following the Thompson correlation, our present universe would have been created in 3113 BC, to be annihilated on December 24, 2011, when the Great Cycle of the Long Count reaches completion" (p. 149, cited by John Hoopes — his dates are slightly "off," partly due to differences between Julian and Gregorian calendars.) To complicate matters, some Maya monuments give dates of the 4 Ajaw 8 Kumk'u Creation with higher-order coefficients, including 8000-year (Piktun), 160,000-year (Kalabtun), 3,200,000-year (K'inchiltun) periods, and on upwards. Such dates at Coba and Yaxchilan fix the coefficients of these "long Long Count" dates all at 13. The dates at Coba have twenty-one-digits, 13.13.13.13. … 13.13.0.0.0.0, fixing Creation in a cycle some nonillions of years long (that's a number with 30 zeroes), billions of billions of times longer than the interval since the (scientifically-accepted) Big Bang. This implies that they believed that 4 Ajaw 8 Kumk'u fell on an extraordinary conjunction of 13's. They must have felt that all those 13's gave the present Creation some special significance. What then, did the higher-order coefficients do after the 13-Pik (or 13-Bak'tuns) was reset to zero? Were they all reset? (Again, recapping the accompanying downloadable presentation, Part 2): The calendar-priests at Yaxchilan don't seem to have thought so. They provide us a 13-digit Long Count date in their present age, where the first eight digits are still frozen at 13. It did not work like a proper odometer. That is, when the Pih/Bak'tun coefficient reset from 13, it did not advance the upper digits, neither to 14, nor to zero, nor to one. Thus, at least at Yaxchilan (and probably at Coba), the higher-order time-units were entirely symbolic: the strings of 13's were not thought of as "real" time units in the same way as the last five. The scribes and Pharisees at Palenque and Tikál did not subscribe to this interpretation of the higher orders of Time-units. Tikál has a stela carrying ananomalous Long Count date implying that they set the present era's Piktun coefficient at 19, not 13. The Palenque calendar apparently differed from both these: they call the year 4774 AD/CE "one Piktun," which can only happen if the coming year 13.0.0.0.0 (in 2012) were followed by 14.0.0.0.0 in 2407 AD, and 15.0.0.0.0 in 2801, and on up past 19.0.0.0.0 around 4370…. In other words, though they agreed on the "normal" five-digit Long Count dates, these three important Maya cities all subscribed to different ideas about what trans-Pik coefficients should be. This indicates that the original Long Count calendar, invented during the Late Formative, probably only defined the lowest five digits, never addressing the Piktuns and so forth at all. The earliest known Long Count dates (7.16.x.x.x, between 40 and 20 BC/BCE) come from Chiapa de Corzo, Tres Zapotes, and Takalik Abaj. The last is Maya, but the other two are Isthmian, miles to the west of Mayaland. Most scholars believe the Long Count to have beeen an Isthmian, not a Maya invention, though there are those who claim its invention for Izapa, right on the border between the two peoples. Unlike the 260-day calendar, use of the Long Count was not widespread; there is no evidence that the Aztecs, Mixtecs, Zapotecs, or any other Mesoamericans ever used it. One note of warning: we have virtually no decipherable texts from the Late Formative era, the time of the calendars' invention. John Major Jenkins, a self-described "2012ologist," points out the danger of using Classic-era texts to interpret the thinking of peoples several centuries earlier and many miles away. He contends that the differences I note between various cities' Long Count calendars are due to much later political manipulation, and ought to be ruled out of any analysis of its inventors' intentions. He firmly believes that the priests who devised the Long Count fixed its "end point" in "Era 2012" rather than some beginning event. The evidence he cites for this is not based on any text, but on his interpretations of Late Formative pictorial monuments, mostly at Izapa. I have preferred to use centuries-too-late textual information, rather than rely on iconography, for a simple reason: In every other context, whether Biblical or Latin or Chinese, written texts convey information orders of magnitude more precisely than just pictures do. It is thanks to texts that we can identify the various avatars and gods of ancient India, although our earliest extant copies of, say, the Vedas, are at least a thousand years removed from their composition. Likewise, earliest surviving Biblical texts are centuries, millennia newer than their originals, yet we are confident that they preserve the stories without severe modification. The same is true for Classical Chinese and Greek literature: though much has been lost in the centries intervening between the origins and our texts, we know copyists have been remarkably faithful. Without the texts, we might have a little trouble identifying just what a Bacchanal represents, or who is who in the Parthenon pediments. And the Izapa monuments – intricate, numerous, and well-preserved (in their original locations!) though they be, possess peculiar, difficult-to-interpret iconography. Many images are unique, and none preserve a trace of readable text. (I suspect that, situated on a border between linguistic groups, Izapa carvers decided to forgo public hieroglyphic inscriptions which would favor one linguistic group over another. A polyglot situation also obtained in Teotihuacán and late Chichén Itzá, multicultural metropolises which likewise avoided public inscriptions.) For an exemplary careful and reasoned interpretation of Izapa's iconography, see Guernsey. For a divergent, much more fanciful one, see Jenkins. The divergence could not happen if the pictures carried readable inscriptions. The most-clearly-recognizable of the Izapa images (Chaak fishing, Hero Twin confronting the Bird) are informed by texts written down many centuries later. Despite the passage of centuries, the written word is surprisingly conservative and reliable." citat av: Mark Van Stone

Senast ändrat 2011-01-03 14:08:26