Bernard wrote:

> Just because you don't know that in 2720 the Maya
> were literate does not mean that any Mesoamerican
> scholar agrees with you.

What are you talking about Bernard? Are you saying the Maya were literate in 2720 BC?

>while
> you are it please provide a citation from a
> refereed publication that supports your proposal
> that The Long Count was in existence by 400 BC.

Once again, what are you talking about Bernard? YOU are the one several posts ago who said the Long Count was in existence by 400 BC. I was quoting YOU.

>I
> just asked Tony Aveni what the consensus is on
> this question and he agrees with David Stuart's
> 200 BC as I previously posted.

No, you posted the long count dated to between 400-300 BC. Go back and read your own post Bernard. (And don't bother trying to edit it an pretend you didn't write it because it's quoted in other posts as well.)

> >Rebby wrote:
> > >began assiduously counting the
> > > years in 2720 BC, and kept the count
> going
> > with
> > > astonishing accuracy for over a
> millennium
> > and a
> > > half, through many generations,
> > disasters,other
> > > notable events, innovations and culture
> > change;
> > > made the connection with a similar event
> in
> > 1142
> > > BC,and calculated the interval between
> the
> > two;
> > > and then sat down some seven centuries
> later
> > to
> > > work out the complexities of the Mayan
> > calendar
> > > based on that interval. Prima facie,
> that
> > does not
> > > sound sensible to me.


>Bernard wrote:
> Purely your coulda-woulda hypothesis --

Once again, what the heck are you talking about Bernard. That passage was written by Rebby NOT me. So why are you responding to me? You are confusing two separate posts by two separate people. If you have a problem with Rebby's comments then reply to Rebby.


>there is
> no evidence except your wishful thinking for this
> actually happening.

I have no wishful thinking because that was not my post. Please reply to Rebby. And please take a few deep breaths and calm down.


>The process first involved
> development of the most fundamental Mesoamerican
> calendar-- the 260-day ritual calendar; next the
> development of the next commensurate calendar the
> 52 year joining of the 360-day solar calendar with
> the 260-day ritual calendar and only then the
> development of the Long Count with an Initial
> date.
>

This is one hypothesis. But Mayan scholars still don't have a clue why the Maya created a 260 day calendar. Lots of guesses (human gestation, corn growing cycle, zenith passages, etc) but no agreement. They are the only people on earth with a 260 day calendar. It makes no sense. What makes more sense is that they created the 360-day solar calendar FIRST. And then created the 260 day calendar in order to create the 52 year alignment. Which then begs the question: why did they need a 52 year cycle?


> The calendar did not begin by "counting the days"
> for a thousand years and then developing all the
> commensurate cycles involving things like the
> Venus cycle as well as all the other cycles
> harmonized by the Mayan calendar. This is placing
> the cart before the horse.

Most calendars begin by counting days. It's simple to do. Suggesting people create calendars by first recognizing venus cycles and other astronomical cycles (a much harder thing to recognize than simply counting days) is placing the cart before the horse. People start by counting. Then they recognize cycles.

>
> Further, the earliest calendric day signs are
> found in the Zapotec area NOT in the Maya area,
> > >

Thanks for that piece of information. Proves nothing, but thanks.



> Yes, and we have evidence of writing since the
> Egyptian and the Sumerian civilizations, which is
> absent for several thousand years in Mesoamerica.
> The comparison is invalid.

We lack evidence of a writing system ENGRAVED IN STONE for several thousand years in Mesoamerica. Assuming the Maya invented writing and immediately began carving it on stone monuments seems illogical. It seems more likely they had writing long long before they ever carved their first stone monument.

>
> I also posted evidence that initial dates of most
> other calendars were not based in commemorating
> some great flood or natural event-- why would, we
> then have to postulate that the Maya were
> completely different?

Other civilizations also didn't have a 260-day calendar. So yes, the Maya were completely different.

So far, nothing you've presented discounts Mike Baillie's research. Try again.




Gary Daniels
Author, "Mayan Calendar Prophecies: Predictions for 2012-2052"
Creator, LostWorlds.org, TheRealMayanProphecies.com
[www.LostWorlds.org]
[www.TheRealMayanProphecies.com]