Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Some Maya rulers may have taken generations to attract subjects

sciencenews.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 51 posts

Re: Some Maya rulers may have taken generations to attract subjects

#31

Post by eternalban »

krapp wrote: post #16
lalos wrote: post #2

My guess is whoever paid attention to the stars/sky and deciphered solstices could get enough knowledge to start being seen as a holy man. You are able to predict seasons and plan agriculture, etc. Add some secrecy in the mix and you have multi-generational power structures.

>My guess is whoever paid attention to the stars/sky and deciphered solstices could get enough knowledge to start being seen as a holy man Persian astologer-priests were literally the magi from which the word magic is derived, so yes.

> Persian astologer-priests were literally the magi from which the word magic is derived, so yes.

True. [Well, they were actually Medes, Iranian astrologer-priests is more accurate.]

https://iranicaonline.org/articles/Magi

The Magi were one of the tribes of Medes and the designated priestly tribe (think Levi). And likely from exposure of Medes (possibly Kurds of today) to Mesopotamian cultural centers, specially Babylon, the Iranian tribes got into astrology and astronomy. The Iranians started out as nomadic herding tribes (Abel) before settling (Cain) and adopting urbanism in what is now called The Iranian Plateau.

So we Iranians (Medes or Persians) did not invent astrology - we almost certainly got that from Babylon and to this day our calendar is the Zodiac, of four season with 3 months each, commencing on Spring Equinox. For example Khordad (3rd month of spring) is Gemini.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zodiac

"Around the end of the 5th century BC, Babylonian astronomers divided the ecliptic into 12 equal "signs", by analogy to 12 schematic months of 30 days each."

This, imo, is where the 12 sons of Jacob (tribes of Israel) and the 12 Imams of Shia come from. All this numerology fascination is Babylonian in origin (though possibly they themselves got it from Egypt).

Re: Some Maya rulers may have taken generations to attract subjects

#32

Post by lazide »

jerry1979 wrote: post #12
soledades wrote: post #3

> "attract subjects" that's an interesting little phraseology/unsubstantiated theory of state, especially coming from a science publication. typically, you "subject" subjects, hence the word. alternatively, if the redundancy bothers you, you can subject populaces instead.

> typically, you "subject" subjects, hence the word. That seems like an appeal to linguistic authority. I have a hard time imagining building a hierarchy without an attraction phase. There are many real world examples: Jim Jones, Uber, the French Revolution, etc.

So you never heard of a population being conquered?

Re: Some Maya rulers may have taken generations to attract subjects

#33

Post by dzink »

googlryas wrote: post #18

Would this be like how Jesus amassed followers? A few dozen in 30 AD, maybe 5000 70 years later, but then 2 million 150 years after that?

The Byzantine emperor Constantine made it go viral around 300AD. He had a lot of attacks from external tribes on the leftovers of the Roman empire and a religion that teaches you to turn the other cheek was very helpful to adopt as a national religion. Then around 1050AD Catholicism split from Orthodoxy and if you were a ruler you got to pick between being in the same club under the influence of the Pope (with his perks and manipulations) or being Tsar with a patriarch underneath you. Some Eastern European countries tried both ways and settled on Orthodoxy. Western Europe rulers intermarried instead, and fought between each-other with the occasional help of the Pope club. They all wanted to claim some shred of grander legitimacy as descendent of the Holy Roman empire and absorb others, but it didn’t work out.

Re: Some Maya rulers may have taken generations to attract subjects

#34

Post by EdwardDiego »

speakfreely wrote: post #24
Apocryphon wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Perhaps it is fitting that the same rival people/nation that oppressed them suffer from the same ambiguity: Spanish vs. Spaniard.

I know everyone likes to hate on Europeans, but the Mexican government has a more substantial history of oppressing the Maya than the Spaniards.

Uhh, you sure about that? Also, what did the Mexican government come from?

Hint: the best kind of Mexican to be, used to be Peninsular.

Also, if you want to deflect from the Spanish, try looking at Guatemala. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guatemalan_genocide

Re: Some Maya rulers may have taken generations to attract subjects

#35

Post by kgwgk »

alistairSH wrote: post #6
golemotron wrote: post #4

Why is it "Maya rulers" rather than "Mayan rulers"?

Generally, Maya refers to the people and culture, while Mayan is the language. He is Maya. They are Maya. Maya ruins. Maya clothing. Mayan languages (30 odd ancient, plus one currently spoken in the Yucatan region).

“Generally” as in “scholars specifically”.

Re: Some Maya rulers may have taken generations to attract subjects

#36

Post by thaumasiotes »

Apocryphon wrote: post #23
ss108 wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Could you use those in sentences to indicate where you think the ambiguity is?

While it is not incorrect to refer to the people as the Spanish, the proper demonym is Spaniard. But people often use the former to refer to the people/nationality anyway. It also frequently gets into further confusion with related identities such as Hispanic, Latino, etc.

> While it is not incorrect to refer to the people as the Spanish, the proper demonym is Spaniard. But people often use the former to refer to the people/nationality anyway.

Well, as you note, referring to the people of Spain in general as "the Spanish" is correct. This is an example of a fairly common construction in English: we equally refer to the French, the rich, the wealthy, the poor, the uneducated, the needy....

You appear to believe that referring to the people of Spain as "the Spaniards" would be even more correct, which suggests you're not a native speaker of English. That is not correct; if you say "the Spaniards", the only response you'll get will be "which Spaniards?", unless a particular set of Spaniards is suggested by context, in which case you'll be referring to them without including the rest of Spain.

Re: Some Maya rulers may have taken generations to attract subjects

#37

Post by [deleted] »

thaumasiotes wrote: post #36
Apocryphon wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

While it is not incorrect to refer to the people as the Spanish, the proper demonym is Spaniard. But people often use the former to refer to the people/nationality anyway. It also frequently gets into further confusion with related identities such as Hispanic, Latino, etc.

> While it is not incorrect to refer to the people as the Spanish, the proper demonym is Spaniard. But people often use the former to refer to the people/nationality anyway. Well, as you note, referring to the people of Spain in general as "the Spanish" is correct. This is an example of a fairly common construction in English: we equally refer to the French, the rich, the wealthy, the poor, the uneducated, the needy.…

[deleted]

Re: Some Maya rulers may have taken generations to attract subjects

#38

Post by Apocryphon »

thaumasiotes wrote: post #36
Apocryphon wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

While it is not incorrect to refer to the people as the Spanish, the proper demonym is Spaniard. But people often use the former to refer to the people/nationality anyway. It also frequently gets into further confusion with related identities such as Hispanic, Latino, etc.

> While it is not incorrect to refer to the people as the Spanish, the proper demonym is Spaniard. But people often use the former to refer to the people/nationality anyway. Well, as you note, referring to the people of Spain in general as "the Spanish" is correct. This is an example of a fairly common construction in English: we equally refer to the French, the rich, the wealthy, the poor, the uneducated, the needy.…

I am willing to concede that I might be overthinking situations where "Spaniards" should be used instead of "the Spanish." Perhaps I was premature in citing a half-remembered verbal tic without having an actual example handy.

But there is neither need to be presumptuous nor offensive, nor officious, in your attempts to grasp at my meaning.

Amusingly enough, in the process of trying to find an erroneous misuse of the terms, and striving in vain, I stumbled upon this article, which is about the complexity of "Spanish" as a transatlantic identity, when it conflates Latin American hispanics with actual immigrant Spaniards:

> The most common adaptation my interviewees reported to deal with the automatic association of Spain with Latin America was for them to disassociate from using the term Spanish as their primary identifier with Anglo-Americans. Rather as Susana, a 25-year-old ESL student, quite vividly noted they had to actively try to reinforce their geographic connection to Europe:

> Susana:

>“I’m not Spanish, I’m from Spain.” I always say that. In fact, I say “I’m from Es-pain” because I cannot say the [English] “s.” And they say “Olé” and laugh.

https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/23326492187663...

Though that, of course, is a different issue altogether!

Edit: After having a think, I'd say that there have been instances where in actual conversation I've heard individual Spanish people referred to as "a Spanish" rather than "a Spaniard." Which, of course, is wrong. It does feel like the word Spaniard has a rather historical, almost literary, sheen, so you don't hear it used in everyday conversation often. And so colloquially speaking, people are more likely to default to incorrect uses of Spanish as a noun. But that might be a misconception I've picked up, I freely admit.

Re: Some Maya rulers may have taken generations to attract subjects

#39

Post by stareatgoats »

eternalban wrote: post #31
krapp wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>My guess is whoever paid attention to the stars/sky and deciphered solstices could get enough knowledge to start being seen as a holy man Persian astologer-priests were literally the magi from which the word magic is derived, so yes.

> Persian astologer-priests were literally the magi from which the word magic is derived, so yes. True. [Well, they were actually Medes, Iranian astrologer-priests is more accurate.] https://iranicaonline.org/articles/Magi The Magi were one of the tribes of Medes and the designated priestly tribe (think Levi). And likely from exposure of Medes (possibly Kurds of today) to Mesopotamian cultural centers, specially Baby…

I never cease to marvel at how ancient cultures are still leaving their mark on us. My own favorite is how the cult of Isis morphed into the cult of the virgin Mary [0], and that the ancient Egyptian tradition (think ~4000+ years ago) of carrying statues of gods around on floats is still very much alive in most (all?) predominantly catholic countries.

[0] https://thedailybeagle.net/2013/04/05/373/

Re: Some Maya rulers may have taken generations to attract subjects

#40

Post by clarionbell »

stareatgoats wrote: post #39
eternalban wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Persian astologer-priests were literally the magi from which the word magic is derived, so yes. True. [Well, they were actually Medes, Iranian astrologer-priests is more accurate.] https://iranicaonline.org/articles/Magi The Magi were one of the tribes of Medes and the designated priestly tribe (think Levi). And likely from exposure of Medes (possibly Kurds of today) to Mesopotamian cultural centers, specially Baby…

I never cease to marvel at how ancient cultures are still leaving their mark on us. My own favorite is how the cult of Isis morphed into the cult of the virgin Mary [0], and that the ancient Egyptian tradition (think ~4000+ years ago) of carrying statues of gods around on floats is still very much alive in most (all?) predominantly catholic countries. [0] https://thedailybeagle.net/2013/04/05/373/

The thing with Isis is a rather fringe theory though. The cults don't really overlap, and iconography is only superficially similar. Both are mothers of important figures ... and that's where the similarities come from.

Same with the floats. How else would you carry statues around?

In general terms, if you look long enough into enough cultures, you start seeing patterns everywhere. But that doesn't necessarily mean that connections exist, or that they are more than superficial. Good example would be various pan-nationalist projects of the 20th century.

Post reply on HN