- i would need to read the source of those mayan dates to determine that catastrophic events happened on that date or not, and to be certain that bc was not an error, for bp. there are many sources in agreement with cayce that the end of the pleistocene, and of atlantis and the megafauna, and a poleshift, occurred circa 10,000 bc, plus minus 500 years. i would challenge the translation or meaning of the glyphs first.this seems to assume that there were maya in 20,000 bce, which most experts would reject.what major event happened 6,000 bce?i accept cayce on the great deluge being about 26,000 bce. the time of noah, nimrod, and babel. this is very close to the same time that the huge meteor struck arizona. could it have caused a poleshift?i dont see how anyone could preclude based on those dates, that atlanteans could not have came into yucatan in large numbers circa 10,000 bce. i have seen nothing to convince me that the maya existed as a nation in yucatan prior to 3100 bce. there were a mixed people there and in the valley of mexico in 3100 bce, but we call them olmec and toltec, and no doubt much atlantean in the gene pool. its possible to interpret cayce as placing a migration of inca and another of lost tribes, arriving in yucatan circa 3100-3000 bce.there is no need to criticize poor cayce, just state a coherent opinion, and let the reader decide.Kind regards,
http://all-ez.com/yahoo-groups.htm----- Original Message -----From: luis_browneSent: Wednesday, March 30, 2005 12:00 AMSubject: [Precolumbian_Inscriptions] Re: Joel Keen on the Maya
One possible way to validate this theory is to look at the other
Mayan calendar termination dates and see if we can find natural
disasters such as the Mayan myths suggest.
20,239BC Mayan 1st age of man started
16,231BC Mayan 2nd age of man started
12,221BC Mayan 3rd age of man started
8,140BC Mayan 4th age of man started
3,114BC Mayan 4th age of man started - start of Long Count
I have been looking at this for a while. I can find physical evidence
to support the last 5 but not the first 1. But the first event could
have been local instead of global.
9,500-8,000 bc (11,500-10,000bp) is generally considered to be the
start of the holocene and the rise of agriculture and there is
evidence that some geological shifts occured at that time as well as
The most-significant event was around 6,400-6,000 Bc (8,400-8,000bp).
"Following the sudden start of the Holocene about 11,500 years ago,
there have been a number of sudden, widespread climate changes
recorded from the palaeoclimatic record around the world. The most
striking of these is a sudden cooling event, about 8,200 years ago
and giving cool, dry conditions lasting perhaps 200 years before a
rapid return to conditions warmer (and generally moister) than the
Around 3,000 bc (5,000bp) the first El Nino was recorded. New
cultures and cities appear world-wide. There is a legend of a
catastrophe in India dating to around 3200bc. There could be a
reason for that pattern, in that the older cities may have been
The Younger Dryas cold event happened at about (12,900-9,500bc)
(12,900-11,500 bp) so perhaps the start of that cold event correlates
with the start of Mayan 3rd age.
16,000bc is the date given by some as the LGM but that seems to vary
somewhat from source-to-source. However, there is nothing to disprove
that that does not correspond to be beginning of the second Mayan age.
20,000BC? So far I've not found any correlation with any geological
event. However, perhaps that date could correspond to the date of
migration of their ancestors instead of a climatic event. That agrees
with the 16,000bc or earlier date suggested recently for the genetic
separation of the American Indians from the Asian population.
All in all, the Mayans appear to be surprisingly accurate to me. I am
still collecting and compling notes on these events. And I keep
finding more evidence to support the "plausibility" of their legends.
The question is how in the world did they compile such records and
why. Perhaps they inherited the data from someone else. That would
almost seem more plausible to me.
Note that none of these correspond with the 10,500BC date proposed by
Cayce for the end of Atlantis. So that much would not support the
Maya as Atlantis theory.
- 'The oldest known giant sequoia based on ring count is 3,500 years old.'
'The bristlecone pines are a small group of pine trees (Family Pinaceae, genus Pinus, subsection Balfourianae) that are thought to reach an age far greater than that of any other single living organism known, up to nearly 5,000 years.'its uncertain how accurate is the counting of tree rings. it may not reflect an annual event, but shows wet-dry patterns, with some years no ring, and others two.such inaccuracy has been pointed out on the count of ice core samples in greenland, instead of annual, some rings were deposited several in one day, depending on snowfall.the old tree species, being on the west coast, would have been less affected by a great tsunami generated in the caribbean sea. the sierra nevada mts may have lessened the impact. being near the pacific coast, they would have been exposed to the more frequent tsunamis along the ring of fire.the reason they fail to reseed themselves, may be the loss of mineral soil, due to those frequent tsunamis. the needed wild fires likely continued unabated until recent times.thus, they may not be useful, in helping us date the great tsunami that killed-off most of the megafauna. it so happens, that they dont contradict a dating of circa 3000 bce, for the great tsunami. a tsunami from the pacific may have washed the mineral soil inland, encouraging tree growth in that direction. where a tsunami from the southeast, breaking over the mts, would have washed the mineral soil into the ocean.we must look to the ancient high cultures of central america and south america, for clues on dating the mega-disaster event, that disrupted them, and killed the megafauna. this won't be easy, until our lads abandon their preconceived notions, and begin to practise true science with an open mind. its better for them to say the date is unknown, until they have compelling evidence. too often they put forth a guess, then defend it, as though their reputation rested upon it. then they fail to investigate solid evidence to the contrary. a true scientist should be willing to change his mind, and update his conclusions. the generations that follow, will respect them, instead of mock and deride them.mike