It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


David Stuart's New Views of Tortuguero Monument 6

page: 1

log in


posted on Oct, 4 2011 @ 03:51 PM

Tortuguero’s Monument 6 continue to be the focus of a good deal of scrutiny, and not just among epigraphers and Mayanists. Many of course claim that the last few glyphs of its long inscription contain the only record of what the ancient Maya had to say or prophesize about the coming end of the Bak’tun in late 2012. I’m partly to blame for the attention given to Monument 6, after some years ago when I posted a brief, off-the-cuff analysis of each glyph on a listserv, where I labelled the passage as the “Tortuguero Prophecy” (see below). Little did I know back then this would soon help set off a frenzy on many New Age websites, associated forum discussions, and even a few book chapters.


For those unfamiliar with Stuart, he is one of the foremost experts on the Mayans and you'd be hard pressed to find even a book on 2012 that doesn't cite his work. He is also partly responsible for the 2012 "prophecy" based on his initial translation of Tortuguero Monument 6. Recently however various researchers have been looking at this monument and have found that Stuart's initial translation was wrong.

This started with a paper by Gronemeyer and Macleod last year in which they determined that the inscription was not a prophecy, but an investiture. Since that time Steve Houston has done his own analysis on the inscription and found that not only is it not a prophecy, but it also has no connection to 13 baktun. In the article posted above David Stuart gives his opinion on this new research, in what is sure to be another crippling blow to 2012 believers.

posted on Oct, 4 2011 @ 04:05 PM
ok.i read the link. pretty neat. i'm still a little lost, though. the world is not going to end on dec 2012...awesome. so...does the mayan calender still says that there will be a change then, like most true 2012 believers agree? or does this mean that the mayans just got lazy and stopped making the calender after dec 2012 and somehow...researchers took that as meaning the mayans predicted the end?

i mean...i can understand a misinterpretation but why is there no known dates after 2012? if some dude just misread something...surely the calender should continue, no?

not trying to down this article or thread...just curious??? i never thought 2012 was "the end" of the world. i just always thought that 2012 would mark some change...or leap???

nice find! S&F for you!

edit on 10/4/11 by ICEKOHLD because: (no reason given)

posted on Oct, 4 2011 @ 04:24 PM
reply to post by ICEKOHLD

There are actually later dates. Some monuments and stela have dates that go beyond a piktun, which is 20 baktun. There are also very few Long Counts that end after 13 baktun and all of them are from the Post-Columbian era. Before this time most Long Counts extended past 13 baktun, with some going up to 19 baktun. The Long Count behaves much like our own calendar. We don't expect the world to end simply because our calendar has no more pages. We expect time to continue on forever. The Long Count is the same way. The Maya couldn't create a calendar that went on forever, so they chose a date far in the future to symbolize this belief that time doesn't end.

posted on Oct, 4 2011 @ 05:42 PM
great thread and an often ignored topic.....

And while the man himself may admit to his misunderstandings, do not expect the believers to take heed...Belief is an irremovable stain.....

The ol Educated Man Vs. Uneducated Masses.....

An educated man can't comprehend the effect an idea will have on the uneducated masses....In some cases, even the educated masses will fall in line....Take Darwin for example, who admitted to holes in his theory, just to be ignored by the same people that idolized him. Take Einstein, who admitted to our limited understanding of physics yet was martyred as the end all be all to modern day physics and the understanding of a universe that we've never even seen.....

Take Stitchen...Oh wait, Stitchen presented his findings as cold hard FACT....oh well, two out of three isn't bad...

Why people choose to ignore the similarities of the particulars involved with calendar construction is just sad....

If calendars were the end all, the world would end on December 31st, EVERY YEAR....Yet the calendar begins again, and the world breathes magic....

edit on 4-10-2011 by OneEleven because: (no reason given)

posted on Oct, 4 2011 @ 06:52 PM
That's the trouble with ancient morphophonemic scripts used in a discursive narrative. It becomes labyrinthine trying to translate them accurately. I'm an academic in this field myself, but not in Meso-American areas of study (I'm in Ancient Near Eastern studies). Still, I know exactly how difficult it can be.

posted on Oct, 4 2011 @ 09:16 PM
And once again a thread where actual researchers disprove the claims made about 2012 falls by the wayside, while the thread with Weekly World News as its source keeps getting replies and flags.

posted on Oct, 4 2011 @ 09:32 PM

Originally posted by Xcalibur254
And once again a thread where actual researchers disprove the claims made about 2012 falls by the wayside, while the thread with Weekly World News as its source keeps getting replies and flags.

I feel your pain. If it's not hystericalendoftheworldomgwe'reallgoingtodie, nobody wants it.

I appreciate your work and time here.

posted on Oct, 5 2011 @ 09:34 AM
The fact that the long count is an unending continuous calendar is lost on many people. There seems to be a misunderstanding between counting using repeating methods and a cyclical calendar.

For example, we use the digits 0 to 9 and see that the units position cycles through the digits 0, 1, 2, 3, ... 9, and then again 0, 1, 2, ... 9, and again and again. This does not mean we use a cyclical counting system.

In the same manner the long count is not cyclical. Each day is assigned a unique number. No two days have the same number. That means that the long count does not cycle.

Thanks for posting this thread of sanity.

posted on Oct, 5 2011 @ 04:49 PM
Well, I think there are two reasons for the lack of interest here.

1. Outside of academic circles, Stuart's article (despite it's often jocular and unpretentious tone) would read as quite dry, dull, and not easy to understand for those who have no academic background. This makes it a one-sided debate you have started here. And, that's not much fun for anyone, is it?

2. Doom - some people enjoy, and even need, the idea of an apocalyptic or ecstatic event. The motivations behind these needs could be less to do with the idea of the uneducated masses reveling in ignorance, and more to do with the sociological factors at work. These reasons run the gamut from feeling desperate, unfulfilled, lonely, sad, disenfranchised and misanthropic, all the way to extreme boredom and a growing intolerance for the mundane.

Fear, wonder, imagination, excitement - these emotions are an antidote to the either despotic, warring or monotonous societies we find ourselves in. So, they look to the skies for deus ex machina. Should we ridicule, lambast and snark at them for it? I don't think so.

top topics


log in