Hello there,
I would like to know one thing: is there any inscription, any archaeological proof showing that the Tomb of Pakal was dedicated in 9.13.0.0.0, 692 AD, as José Argüelles claims? I like confirming things and not blindly believing anything I read, so that's why I'm asking this.
Any help, any clue will be of the greatest importance. Thanks for your time!
Regards,
Tezcatlipoca
I would like to know one thing: is there any inscription, any archaeological proof showing that the Tomb of Pakal was dedicated in 9.13.0.0.0, 692 AD, as José Argüelles claims? I like confirming things and not blindly believing anything I read, so that's why I'm asking this.
Any help, any clue will be of the greatest importance. Thanks for your time!
Regards,
Tezcatlipoca
posted by:
|
Portugal
|
-
Re: Tomb of Pacal dedicated in 9.13.0.0.0 ???
Mon, October 8, 2007 - 5:20 PMDEDICATORY DATES OF MONUMENTS
There are no foolproof rules for determining the commemorative date of a monument, but one is fairly safe in assuming that the latest period ending recorded is that of the monument's dedication, particularly if that is given at the close of the text, although there are exceptions. For instance, Copan S has an IS 9.15.0.0.0, which is followed by a period ending 10.0.0.0.0, but there is good evidence that the latter was not the dedicatory date of the altar but was probably inserted because 9.15.0.0.0 marked the completion of three-quarters of Baktun 9 (more correctly 10). The glyphs lack late features (the tun with horizontal lines, and the St. Andrew's cross as a numerical filler are absent; the Ahau with its crescentic eyes is a type in use around 9.16.0.0.0, but not two katuns later). Furthermore, Copan had abandoned the use of IS by 9.18.0.0.0, and without much doubt had ceased to erect hieroglyphic monuments before 10.0.0.0.0.
Style of the glyphs, detailed treatment of elements of costume and attributes of personages (Proskouriakoff, MS.), location of the monument (not infrequently monuments which follow in a sequence of erection are grouped in a single court), methods of recording lunar data, and length of text and its subject matter (late monuments tend to have abbreviated texts which ignore problems to the fore in earlier times) are all helpful in deciding on the dedicatory date of a monument, if that is in doubt.
Generally speaking, the dedicatory date of a monument is posterior to any non-tun ending date recorded in the text, but, here again, there are exceptions which prove the rule: Los Higos 1 has an IS 9.17.10.7.0 9 Ahau 3 Zec, but a distance number of 7 uinals followed by the anterior date indicator leads back to 9.17.10.0.0 12 Ahau 8 Pax. This is probably the dedicatory date, although on the opposite side there is what may be the start of a distance number (0 kins, 0 uinals), which might have been 10.0.0, and, therefore, carried the count forward to 9.18.0.0.0.
Maya Hieroglyphic Writing (excerpts), by J. Eric S. Thompson, [1950], at sacred-texts.com
p. 155 -
-
Re: Tomb of Pacal dedicated in 9.13.0.0.0 ???
Mon, October 8, 2007 - 7:15 PMThere doesn't appear to be any text on the Temple of Inscriptions that specifically states the date of its dedication.
There is text in the Group of the Cross connecting the dedication rituals to the katun ending 9.13.0.0.0., although the rituals themselves, or at least preparatory rituals took place a couple years before the katun ending over a span from 9.12.18.5.16. - 9.12.18.6.1. (interestingly, spanning from the end of one solar year to the beginning of another, July 21 - 26 690 AD.)
More dates were added to the chronology beyond this dedication by Chan Balam, including the 8th anniversary of his accession, Jan 10 692 AD, & finally the 9.13.0.0.0. katun ending marks the latest date recorded in the group of the cross (on both the Sun and Foliated Cross temples).
As for the Temple of Inscriptions, going by the outline given by Thompson above, lacking any definite statements as to the date of it's dedication, 9.13.0.0.0. would be the obvious choice.
The texts of the Temple of the Inscriptions contain seminal katun histories. "This first known katun history was the prototype of th later k'atun prophecies of the Books of Chilam Balam" (The Code of Kings by Schele & Matthews pg 108).
These katun histories record historical events from 9.4.0.0.0. to 9.13.0.0.0. The 9.13.0.0.0. date is then connected with the baktun ending 10.0.0.0.0. (highlighting the interval of seven generation), and then to a date far into the future which would be 10.0.0.0.0 doubled, that is 20 baktuns after 3114 BC, or 80 calendar rounds after Pacals accession (80 = Pacal's age at death) in like the 5th century AD.
This is recorded on Panel 3 in the Temple of the inscriptions.
Also, regarding the inscriptions on the sarcophagus lid "In order to anchor the chronology, the scribes divided the same nine k'atuns registered in the history above (9.4.0.0.0. to 9.13.0.0.0) into thirds by inserting the dates 9.7.0.0.0 and 9.10.0.0.0 into the sequence of deaths." (The Code of Kings pg 117).
So the basic framework of the history of Palenque is divided into three even segments of three katuns
each:
9.4.0.0.0. to 9.7.0.0.0.
9.7.0.0.0. to 9.10.0.0.0.
and 9.10.0.0.0. to 9.13.0.0.0.
ending significantly on 8-Ahau, Pacal's birth sign.
thanks for asking this question... i been meaning to collate this info for a while now
peace be with -
-
Re: Tomb of Pacal dedicated in 9.13.0.0.0 ???
Mon, October 8, 2007 - 8:28 PMwow
i just realized that the 9.13 date occurred in Dreamspell year 12-Wizard, first of the lost generations...
if i wasn't so used to these things that would really blow my mind!
-
Re: Tomb of Pacal dedicated in 9.13.0.0.0 ???
Tue, October 9, 2007 - 1:31 PMThanks for your replies and valuable info, TreeFrog.
However, reading all that you wrote, I must conclude that there isn't any inscription or monument that clearly shows 9.13.0.0.0 to have been the date when the Tomb of Pakal was dedicated, right? I mean, there are references to rituals celebrating the end of the Katun, as you said, but nothing at all about a possible dedicated of Pakal's tomb in 9.13.0.0.0. Am I right?
Also, don't you find strange the fact that Pakal himself never used the Dreamspell calendar, as it is a modern calendar, created by / "revealed" to José Argüelles, but people continue to use it to supposedly validate all those "curiosities" about Pakal's life? That's what I usually call *misinformation*. No offense intended.
Best regards,
Tezcatlipoca
-
Re: Tomb of Pacal dedicated in 9.13.0.0.0 ???
Tue, October 9, 2007 - 2:05 PMI agree with you, Tezcatlipoca.
Sounds like a fake to me what TreeFrog said, when trying to build a "bridge" between any date of the traditional calendar and the Dreamspell. It's kinda obvious, to me, that NO SOLAR YEAR has began on the point that TreeFrog said.
Also, we must remember that the people from the Dreamspell always say that Pakal's day is 8 Ahau, when Pakal's day will never be 8 Ahau inside of the Dreamspell.
It can be valid for you to use a date in the Dreamspell that is not from the Dreamspell, but it will never be valid that you use a date in the traditional calendar and link it to the Dreamspell's new years date, just because it falls on July 26th. It would have to be a day "0 Pop" in Haab, then you could say whatever you want/you said, and i guess you know that.
Well, not what i see in this case...
Hugs
-
Re: Tomb of Pacal dedicated in 9.13.0.0.0 ???
Tue, October 9, 2007 - 2:05 PMI agree with you, Tezcatlipoca.
Sounds like a fake to me what TreeFrog said, when trying to build a "bridge" between any date of the traditional calendar and the Dreamspell. It's kinda obvious, to me, that NO SOLAR YEAR has began on the point that TreeFrog said.
Also, we must remember that the people from the Dreamspell always say that Pakal's day is 8 Ahau, when Pakal's day will never be 8 Ahau inside of the Dreamspell.
It can be valid for you to use a date in the Dreamspell that is not from the Dreamspell, but it will never be valid that you use a date in the traditional calendar and link it to the Dreamspell's new years date, just because it falls on July 26th. It would have to be a day "0 Pop" in Haab, then you could say whatever you want/you said, and i guess you know that.
Well, not what i see in this case...
Hugs -
-
Re: Tomb of Pacal dedicated in 9.13.0.0.0 ???
Tue, October 9, 2007 - 3:25 PM
-
Re: Tomb of Pacal dedicated in 9.13.0.0.0 ???
Wed, October 10, 2007 - 12:54 AMi can use any date from any count or any sign from anywhere and still find synchronicity!!
dreamspell gives it a great vehicle of language, traditional maya kept brilliant records of history and future
a 2,000 year old mayan crystal skull i once met, told me that its all one big perfect cosmic weaving... the dreamspell is one with the traditional maya... its all one and these signs of history are just karmic maker points on our journey home
love
-
-
Re: Tomb of Pacal dedicated in 9.13.0.0.0 ???
Wed, October 10, 2007 - 9:56 AMForward from:
galacticactivationportals.tribe.net/thread/639a57e4-6051-4dd9-bad5-a2bfa76e017b#589e5509-b35e-468a-85e5-33c95f766d68
---------------------------------
Hello d2a, how are you? :)
Yes, I've done that. However, even though there are several webpages connected to the Dreamspell calendar and/or José Argüelles that say that the tomb of Pakal was dedicated in 692 AD (9.13.0.0.0), 9 years after his death in 683 AD, not even one of them offers any clue, any photograph of a monument or inscription showing that the tomb of Pakal really was dedicated in 9.13.0.0.0. As far as I know, the only mention to 9.13.0.0.0 in Palenque involved some kind of rituals celebrating the end of the Katun... and strangely enough, that's all there is!
My personal opinion, at least while I don't dispose of any other clues or proofs, is that Argüelles himself invented this "fact", in order to bring some 'importance' to the fact that there are 1260 years (12:60) between 692 and 1952 AD (when the tomb of Pakal was discovered), and 1320 years (13:20) between 692 and 2012 AD (the End of the Cycle). Doing that, he could fool all those who blindly believed that he was telling the truth. And this isn't as strange or shocking as it might appear, as he had already lied concerning Pakal's enthroning and death dates, saying that they were respectively in 631 AD (specifically kin-day 1'366'560 = Long Count 9.9.16.0.0, 4 Ahau, 8 Cumku) and 683 AD (kin-day 1'385'540 = LC 9.12.8.13.0, 4 Ahau, 8 Cumku). I would like to ask one thing to all Dreamspell followers. If you yourselves say that 6 ETZNAB (kin 118), one the so-called "Pacal Votan signs", was the day of his death, howcome do you continue even today to support Argüelles, if the date that he himself gives is a 4 AHAU (kin 160) day? Don't you think that MAYBE Argüelles have been fooling you all of this time? I bet he has!
Well, despite the fact that kin-day 1'366'560 falls in 629 AD and kin-day 1'385'540 in 681 AD [difference of minus 2 years], Pakal himself was *NOT* born on those kin days. According to academic studies [ www.mesoweb.com/palenque/r..._table.html ], Kinich Janaab Pakal --his real name-- acceeded to the throne on kin 1'361'608, which was LC 9.9.2.4.8, 5 Lamat, 1 Mol (gregorian July 27, 615 AD), and died on kin 1'386'478, which was LC 9.12.11.5.18, 6 Etznab, 11 Yax (gregorian August 29, 683 AD). Now this is *way* different from the dates given by Argüelles, the self-proclaimed Messiah --or "Planetary Healing Doctor" as he says-- Valum Votan.
Now you may ask me: why did he lie about all this? Well... one possible answer is that any self-proclaimed Messiah must try to bring a powerful aura to any of his books and works, even if it is through lies, half-truths, and fact manipulation (in this case, it was the book called "The Mayan Factor"). We have already seen this before, and it surely is repeating itself again.
Did I help you? :P
Best regards,
Tezcatlipoca
-
-
-
-
