Talk:Maya calendar

Venus Information

(grr 23:38, 24 March 2006 (UTC)) I don't think the Venus references belong here as it doesn't directly talk about the Calendar. I think there there needs to be a completely separate page on Maya Astronomy. I haven't done it, but it should be considered.

I agree since the Dresden Codex is not the calendar. I also want to know if anyone can tell me if the Venus Almanac in the Dresden Codex is predictive of observational.

204.227.223.74 18:42, 14 June 2006 (UTC)Tlaloc

It's predictive, but must have taken hundreds of years of very careful observations and recordings to form. The correction numbers on the page are an incredible achievement. --grr 16:58, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

"Divination References"

I would like to know specifically where this information comes from.

"For example, a child born on the day of Akabal was thought to be feminine, wealthy, and verbally skillful"

Where can one verify this information and find what the other signs meant?

• (grr 23:38, 24 March 2006 (UTC)) I believe that info is in Thompson's Maya Hieroglyphic Writing. See the references in the article.

I added that, and it comes from Tedlock, Barbara: Time and the Highland Maya. I'd tell you so on your talk page if you'd signed your comment with four tildes. (There is a program called "Tzolkin" for PalmOS handheld computers that includes more data from this source; you'd need a palmOS emulator to run it on a desktop computer.) --Homunq 20:05, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

I think it would be best for any and all mentions of divinatory associations with calendric elements to be accompanied by specific citations, since the specifics of such associations vary considerably from region to region (eg highlands vs lowlands) and time to time. Many that are floating around come from more contemporary (rather than actual pre-Columbian) Maya accounts, and it would be important to also note from when and where Tedlock (for example) attributes the association, as well as the association itself.--cjllw | TALK 00:29, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

"Galactic center"

the Maya chose the start date for their long count so that the alignment of the Sun with the Galactic Center will occur on the end date -- what does this mean? As two points determine a line, is the Sun not always in alignment with the Galactic Center? Or does it mean that the Sun, the Earth and the Galactic center are in alignment?

I don't know, and I'm very skeptical of that statement. Unless there is some explanation/clarification I will remove it from the article and move it here to talk. The Maya calendar articles and the Aztec calendar articles, IMO, are something of a mess at present, and I've so far been reluctant to jump into the major work they need. -- Infrogmation 16:02, 13 May 2004 (UTC)

As no objection or expanation has appeared since, I've moved the statement below from the article to here. -- Infrogmation 21:23, 26 May 2004 (UTC)

According to some students of the Maya calendar, the Maya chose the start date for their long count so that the alignment of the Sun with the Galactic Center will occur on the end date, although according to astronomers it is not possible to specify such an "alignment" with a precision of less than a few years.

---

I think that statement is a confusing attempt at summarizing the Jenkins explanation. (See the Jenkins link at the end of the article).

Let me try to paraphrase Jenkins:

If you look at the stars (or at a map of the stars), the Sun and all the (visible) planets are always found along a straight line on the map called the ecliptic. The Milky Way (as seen in the sky from Earth) lies along another line on the map called the galactic plane. (Some people call the intersection of these 2 lines the "galactic center". But I think the true Galactic Center is somewhere else along the galactic plane, right?) The sun makes a complete circle all the way around the ecliptic every year. The exact day of the year that the sun crosses the galactic plane, however, is very slowly changing. (On that special day, the Milky way points exactly at the sun just before sunrise, and continues to point to the sun just after sunset). Over the past roughly 3000 years, the day the sun crosses the galactic plane has changed from early November, to nearly the winter solstice. In 2012, the sun will cross the galactic plane on the day of the winter solstice.

Jenkins claims that the Maya choose the start date for their long count, such that that long-awaited, never-seen-before event (the "special day" of the sun crossing the galactic plane, and the day of the winter solstice, both occuring on the *same* day) will occur on the end date.

Does that make sense? Is this worth moving into the article? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.189.75.148 (talk • contribs) 20 Nov 2005.

No one can observe the Sun crossing the Galactic plane because the Sun is too bright. Indeed, you cannot even observe it just after sunset. The Sun must be at least 18° below the horizon for the Milky Way to be seen at all. Nor can any stars be observed near the Sun. The typical link used by pre-modern astronomers was the Moon—as the Sun is setting, the full moon is rising (both have a refraction error of 1/2° and the full moon has a parallax error of 1° compared to their meridian positions). But even a full moon is too bright to observe the Milky Way, only bright stars are then visible. The Moon must be below the horizon to observe the Milky Way. Thus the Milky Way is twice removed from Sun: Sun → Moon → bright stars → Milky Way. The point here is that any error in the speed of the Sun along the ecliptic will be compounded by any error in the speed of the Moon, which does not even follow the ecliptic, but can deviate from it by up to 5°.

Based on about 400 years' worth of written observations, the Babylonians had a highly accurate value for the average speed of the Moon, but although they knew that its speed was highly variable, they could not assign any decent value to it. The first to offer any reasonable value for these variations was Ptolemy, and his values were off by several degrees. Not until about 1750 did anyone develop resonably accurate (within a fraction of 1°) predictions for the true position of the Moon.

The ancient Egyptians thought the sidereal year was 365 1/4 days, if we are to believe that they knew of the Sothic cycle, which is far from certain. Their calendar, like that of the Maya Haab calendar, used a year of only 365 days with no leap days at all. But the 365-day Haab is a later creation than the Long Count—only the 260-day Tzolkin is contemporaneous.

To find the length of the tropical year, we must subtract precession from the sidereal year. But Jenkins offers no evidence whatsoever that the Maya knew of precession. But even if they knew of it, there is no way that they could have had an accurate value for it. Both Hipparchus and Ptolemy underestimated the speed of precession by about 40%, by far the worst 'accuracy' of the three required speeds. They thought an equinox would move 1° every century, whereas its true value is about 1° every 72 years. Both Hipparchus and Ptolemy assumed that a tropical year (which includes precession) was 365+1/4–1/300 days long. We can use Robert van Gent's Almagest Ephemeris Calculator to determine when Ptolemy would have placed the winter solstice of 2012. The result is near midnight Maya time at the beginning of 16 December (Julian) or 3 December (Gregorian). So if the Maya had Ptolemy's knowledge and all of his errors and ideosyncracies, they would have placed the epoch of the Long Count about 19 days earlier than they did to make sure that it ended on a winter solstice. I doubt that Ptolemy assigned any plane or great circle to the Milky Way, so was probably not able to calculate when the winter solstice would cross it to an accuracy of a year.

David Ulansey has the conjunction of the winter solstice, ecliptic, and galactic equator occurring 21 December 1999. Another view on the Maya conjunction, admitting that it is 12 years late according modern Galactic coordinates, is that by Alias Jones. Still another analysis by Shepherd Simpson stated that the conjunction occurred 21 December 1997. Finally we have another New Age astrologist/philosopher (like Jenkins), Carl Johan Calleman, who destroys Jenkins' arguments, partially using Jenkins' own words, for Jenkins himself stated that the end of a one fifth precession cycle (5125 years) occurred 12 December 1998 and that the conjunction occurred 12 December 1999, in agreement with modern astrologists and astronomers (Jenkins obviously ignored his own statement to arrive at his 2012 conclusion). A major part of Calleman's criticism is that Jenkins totally ignores the Maya Creation stories, which describe the events near 3114 BC, not those near 2012.

Jenkins does not even mention most of the lunar and solar positioning errors, asking us to believe that the Olmec (who developed the Long Count several centuries before the Maya adopted it) had knowledge that not even the Old World had until several centuries later. But that is insufficient—the Olmec must have had precise modern knowledge of all astronomical calculations in order to predict the winter solstice with an accuracy of a single day over two millennia later. I reject that as utterly preposterous. The end point of the Long Count being at a winter solstice is pure coincidence. Even if we surmount this insurmountable barrier, precession is so slow and the Milky Way so wide that any winter solstice in a 30-year period (about 1/2 degree) can be chosen as the Sun's arrival at the Milky Way, depending solely on the discretion of the astrologist.

— Joe Kress 01:11, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

Joe, a masterly demolition, very nice work. I had in mind to register my own objections, but these are now rendered superfluous. It only remains to add that despite his namedropping of reputable scholars like Schele and Lounsbury, Jenkins is himself neither credible nor accredited in this field, one of many such "enthusiasts". Apart from where he has pestered Mayanists on some Usenet groups, no-one has taken a blind bit of notice of his theories, and as such they do not really warrant mentioning here, even as an example of erroneous but widely-circulated interpretation.--cjllw | TALK 03:14, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

Jenkins does get one fact right: He states that the epoch of the Long Count was in 3114 BC—most Maya scholars insist, or used to insist, that it occurred in 3113 BC. This is because they included a year zero between BC and AD. See, for example, Linda Schele, The proceedings of the Maya hieroglyphic workshop (Austin, Texas, 1992) page 173. — Joe Kress 06:17, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

Joe: There are two methods of calculating negative years - historical and astronomical. In historical the year 1BC is followed by the year 1AD. In astronomical dating there is a year -1 followed by zero followed by 1 so -3113 is the same as 3114BC. 19:34, 8 July 2006 (UTC)Tlaloc

While I seriously doubt the Maya knew the relative movements of astronomical bodies with greater accuracy than modern astronomers (because you'd expect to find remnants of the technologies needed to keep such accurate tabs in addition to evidence of knowledge of predictive physical theories), there is no reason to believe that they didn't know more than "Old World" astronomers--they were working with the same technology (the time they were making these observations is irrelevant, since they were independent societies. It is quite concievable that the Olmecs refined the art of astronomical observation long before Ptolemy, I don't know why you think its so ridiculous). Of course there is ALSO no reason to believe that they did know more accurately the relative movements. But nonetheless your argument that because "Old World" astronomers didn't have a very accurate view so therefore the "New World" astronomers couldn't have surpassed them doesn't hold a bit of water. It is possible that the Olmecs knew some tricks that "Old World" astronomers didn't. I'm not saying they did, I'm just saying "its possible", and your implicit assumption that the ancient "New World" astronomers must have had atleast as much inaccuracy as the "Old World" astronomers is completely unwarranted.

If you were to make a good upper limit argument on thier accuracy it would have to start from assumptions about the technology they likely had to work with and thier knowledge of physics. It might be safe to assume they didn't have glass grinding technology, and therefore no telescopes (and even if you allowed for that, it would be safe to assume it wasn't incredibly accurate glass grinding technology, because glass doesn't appear to be a technology that was widely used enough for archaelogists to have found some remnants of it). Likewise there is no apparent knowledge of say relativititic effects. With those two assumption you could find some upper and lower limits of the accuracy of thier measurments and predictions. But NOT by comparing them with "Old World" astronomers. Brentt 00:55, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Brentt: Ancient Mesoamerican astronomy was based on the azimuth of the rising and setting of heavenly bodies so your speculation that they might have had more accurate data than later old word astronomers is wrong. You can read about this in Anthony Aveni's classic book which is listed in the bibliography. Also it is unnecessary for you to put so many terms in quotes. 19:34, 8 July 2006 (UTC)Tlaloc

All I was sayign is that what Old World astronomers did was completely independent of what mesoamerican astronomers did. The relative times they did it is irrelevant to. What is relevant is thier methods, Ptolemy's and Hipparchus's method's are completely irrelevant to mesoamerican methods. The methods themselves will provide upper limits on accuracy, and you can't glean any information about thier methods from Old World methods (atleast not that you couldn't glean from the methods themeselves). I didn't mean that speculataion in any more than a trivial sense. (like "its possible they were the descendents of the Great Spahgetti Monster") The point was that what Ptolemy did had nothing to do with what the Olmecs or Maya did. Brentt 22:52, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Mayan/Maya

Shouldn't this be called the "Mayan calendar" instead of the "Maya calendar"? It's like saying "the France government" instead of "the French government". — Tim McCormack 01:24, 2004 Oct 11 (UTC)

"Maya" is an adjective as well as a noun. While both "Maya" and "Mayan" are used as adjective forms in English, "Maya" seems prefered in the more scholarly works. -- Infrogmation 04:36, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)

"Maya" is the preferred adjective except when referring to the language, where "Mayan" is preferred. — Joe Kress 06:18, Oct 11, 2004 (UTC)

Okeydoke. It still seems a little awkward, but I'll accept that... — Tim McCormack 17:22, 2004 Oct 11 (UTC)

I used to think the same thing, and it does still seem awkward, but I agree that most scholarly and academic accounts use "maya" as both an adj and a noun. The Ungovernable Force 07:54, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Commendable article

I have to say this is one of the most lucid, intriguing wiki articles of this length I've seen.

Agree, this is a very good piece 135.196.228.114 11:31, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

I must say I'm impressed as well. Where did all the typos go? ;) Lusanaherandraton 07:52, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Start with 0 or 1?

According to the Maya calendar article, the days of the Tzolkin calendar begin with zero: 0 Ahau, 1 Imix, and so on. But on the Tzol'kin article itself the days the calenday begins 1 Ahau, 2 Imix (...). Which is it? Do we just not know?

Someone has confused the numbers associated with the Haab with those of the Tzolkin. The days of a Haab month are numbered 0-19, consisting of the numbers 1-19 plus the "seating of" a month glyph. Most regard the latter as day 0 of the named month, but some treat it as day 20 of the preceding (unnamed) month. But all sources state the day numbers of the Tzolkin are 1-13, not 0-12, along with 20 day names. Most list the day names beginning with Imix but a few begin with Ahau. — Joe Kress 23:48, Apr 9, 2005 (UTC)

Yes, it definitely starts with 1, however, the beginning of the Tzolkin ought to be 1 Imix, not 1 Ahau. In the Tzolkin, only the numbers 1 to 13 are used. Dylanwhs 15:55, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Merger

I merged Maya Long Count Calendar here because each article seemed to be the other's missing half. As someone not familiar with the subject, I found it a lot easier to understand reading about it in the sequence I've just arranged. -- Beland 03:28, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

I corrected some double redirects that ultimately point to the Maya calendar. --GraemeMcRae 21:42, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

That's fine as far as things stand now; however, there's much more which could be detailed about the Long Count than would otherwise fit into this present article covering all calendar types. Maya Long Count Calendar is probably deserving of its own article, but breaking it out again when sufficient extra detail is accumulated should not pose too much of a problem.--cjllw | TALK 22:55, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

Najt and "space-time"

I've removed the following passage from the text:

This concept was embodied by what is termed Najt, or the concept of time and space consisting of a single entity represented in a spiral format. By understanding time, the Maya believed they could gain power over their world.

As far as I can determine, najt (also nach, najat, naac' etc in various Maya languages) in modern Chol and Chorti has the meaning of "distance", or "far". Sources which mention "najt" in the terms above seem to be mainly mystical, modern interpretations, not necessarily bona fide sources when in comes to applying this to pre-Columbian Maya context. Also, in what way was "time and space" conceived of as a single entity- its meaning is not clear to me. If there are further specific references which review the point, would be happy to consider.--cjllw | TALK 08:10, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

Calculating the Tzolkin date portion

The text of this section of the article now reads:

The Tzolkin date is counted forward from 4 Ahau. To calculate the numerical portion of the Tzolkin date, we must add 4 to the total number of days given by the date, and then divide total number of days by 13. (4 + 1383136) / 13 = 106395 and 5/13 This means that 106395 complete 13 day cycles have been completed, and the numerical portion of the Tzolkin date is 5. To calculate the day, we divide the total number of days in the long count by 20 since there are twenty day names. 1383136 / 20 = 69156 and (16/20) This means 16 day names must be counted from Ahau. This gives Cib. Therefore, the Tzolkin date is 5 Cib.

An anonymous person added this text:

*** This is not quite right: the remainder, when you divide by 13, ranges from 0 to 12. But the Tzolkin dates go from 1 to 13. So you should add 3 to the day number, find the remainder when dividing by 13, and then add 1. ***

The change, as it was formatted by that anonymous person, is inappropriate for the article space. However, the person has a point. What if the remainder had been zero? For example, what if the day were 1383131, and the same calculation were performed? It strikes me that a change of one sort or another is needed here.—GraemeMcRae^talk 04:44, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

The maths is by using the modulo 13 of a number. Basically you are subtracting as many 13's as possible from the original number. Whatever is left is what you use to advance the count from the base date. If the remainder was 0, you don't advance that portion of the date. Dylanwhs 09:26, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Accurate calendars

It's been reported the Maya caledar was the most accurate until the Gregorian. Trekphiler 22:51, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

True, that is a statement frequently encountered, and perhaps equally often it is claimed that the Maya calendar was/is much more accurate than our present Western one. However, both of these statements are untrue, or at least need to be highly qualified. As shown in this article, the portion of the Maya calendar which approximated the tropical year took account of 365 full days, and the calendar itself had no mechanism or adjustment such as 'leap years' which would keep it in synch with the "true" year. However, even though the Maya did not see fit to update their calendar with the appropriate compensatory mechanisms, it is evident that they were well enough aware of its gradual precession for they would from time to time realign certain ceremonies which were supposed to correspond with astronomical and seasonal events- but did not adjust the calendar itself. I think that when people (rather too loosely) speak of the Maya calendars' "remarkable accuracy", what they are really referring to is their prowess in observational and mathematical calculations, with which they could indeed pinpoint certain astronomical events with considerable accuracy. For eg, by extending the number of observation cycles of the moon (as is done in the Dresden Codex's eclipse tables) to 405 lunar months, this corresponded to a mean synodic month of 29.53086, whereas the modern mean value is 29.53059. This is a little more accurate than the corresponding Ptolemaic calculation, for example. However, it should be noted that these calculations were done more so to "fit in" with numbers and cycles they found significant, rather than for accuracy's sake alone, and that the calendars themselves were not adjusted. Perhaps it could be said that they possessed highly accurate almanacs, rather than calendars.--cjllw | TALK 00:40, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Date of the supposed end of the world

I always heard it was December 23, 2012, not December 21. What's up with that? December 21st is the solstice, maybe someone got confused. Perhaps there is a debate, but I have heard Decemeber 23 from several sources, including a video on the Mayan calendar. The Ungovernable Force 07:56, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

The difference between the two dates (dec 21 & dec 23) in 2012 for the completion of the current cycle is attributable to a slight difference in the base correlation factor used (for which there is not universal agreement). The great majority of reputable Mayanist scholars support a correlation between the Maya and Western calendars known as the Goodman-Martinez-Thompson (GMT) correlation; however, this correlation allows some latitude over three successive days for the starting point, and which of these three possible days is "correct" has not been decisively proven (at least not to the satisfaction of all parties). In the GMT correlation, the "starting point" of the cycle occurred on either 11, 12, or 13 August 3114BC (proleptic Gregorian dates). Depending on which of these is adopted (and each have had their proponents), a correspondingly-different end date will be arrived at, hence the different alternatives of dec 21 & 23. I agree that there's scope for expansion upon this point in the article.

As to the cycle ending at or near the December solstice, this is generally believed to be no more than a coincidence (ie, the calendar —the Long Count in fact is not a novelty of the Maya, but is known from earlier inscriptions in Mesoamerica— was not specifically designed to end at a solstice point). Nor is there any specific contemporary evidence from the inscriptions or codices that the cycle completion portended the end of the world, for the Maya. Hope this helps.--cjllw | TALK 01:05, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Wouldn't it help to disprove the claim actually having the date for the "13.13.13.13.13.13.13.13.13.13.13.13.13.13.13.13.13.13.13.13.0.0.0.0" 'end of the world' to show how off the 2012 date is from the Mayan end of the world. Incidentally the Mayan 'end of the world' date appears to be far too large if 1.0.0.0.0.0 is in 4772 and would most likely correspond better to the end of the universe, which also ties in with the end of their last creation. Just a thought. --83.100.130.53 14:36, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Question for folks. I've noticed this on article and in the comments. The system described is vegesimal (base-20), yet the article and the comment above show 20 13's and 5 0's. Should it not instead be 15 13's and 5 0's? Or is there some other reason why there would be 25 entries in a base-20 system? If it isn't just a mistyping, there should be some clarification as to reasoning.

Bdevoe 16:31, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

That's the date recorded on the monument at Coba. The number of 13's is irrelevant, as it is obvious that they meant 13's in all higher places. No reasoning needs to be given, because that is what is written. --grr 19:12, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

When the Maya (or any other) number system is described as vigesimal/base-20, this means that when any given individual number is represented in a place-value notational number system, each digit is multiplied by the base (in this case, 20) raised to the n^th power, where n is the position (starting with 0) of that digit's place in the representation. For example, in our own decimal/base-10 system, the number 1234 is equivalent to 4×10⁰ + 3×10¹ + 2×10² + 1×10³. A base-20 notation system requires 20 distinct symbols/groups of symbols to represent all of the digits which could occur in any given place (0,1,2,...19), for which the Maya typically used "bar-and-dot" symbols.

However, the number of places which could appear in a number's representation is not restricted by the base, and so the Maya base-20 has nothing to do with how many positions can be represented for their numerals, only how many values or digits there are to choose from to use in each individual place (ie, because ours is a base-10 system, this does not mean that our numerals have to have ten places, or that we would have to write "1234" as 0000001234).

To add to the confusion, the Maya Long Count system is not a purely vigesimal/base-20 system anyway, since the second-order place (tun) uses a multiplier of 18×20, instead of 20×20. Hope that helps.--cjllw | TALK 02:53, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

The Long Count may be considered purely vigesimal, if you consider the tun to be the primary unit, not the kin. The winal and kin are only the count of days since the start of the tun. In some (mainly older) western texts, you will see a long count written as 9.17.2x3.4, with the x marking the difference between the count of tun's and count of days within the tun. --grr 07:52, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

How did they get October 13th, 4722 CE as the end date?

--Mdsats 05:57, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
Take a look at the 13-baktun Cycle:
13.0.0.0.0 - August 11, 3114 BCE
1.0.0.0.0 - November 13, 2719 BCE
2.0.0.0.0 - February 16, 2324 BCE
3.0.0.0.0 - May 21, 1930 BCE
4.0.0.0.0 - August 23, 1536 BCE
5.0.0.0.0 - November 26, 1142 BCE
6.0.0.0.0 - February 28, 747 BCE
7.0.0.0.0 - June 3, 353 BCE
8.0.0.0.0 - September 5, 41 CE
9.0.0.0.0 - December 9, 435 CE
10.0.0.0.0 - March 13, 830 CE
11.0.0.0.0 - June 15, 1224 CE
12.0.0.0.0 - September 18, 1618 CE
13.0.0.0.0 - December 21, 2012 CE
1.0.0.0.0 - March 5th, 2407 CE
2.0.0.0.0 - June 28th, 2801 CE
3.0.0.0.0 - October 1st, 3195 CE
4.0.0.0.0 - January 3rd, 3590 CE
5.0.0.0.0 - April 7th, 3984 CE
6.0.0.0.0 - July 11th, 4378 CE
7.0.0.0.0 - October 13th, 4722 CE
8.0.0.0.0 - January 16th, 5167 CE
9.0.0.0.0 - April 20th, 5561 CE
10.0.0.0.0 - July 24th, 5955 CE
11.0.0.0.0 - October 26, 6349 CE
12.0.0.0.0 - January 29, 6744 CE
13.0.0.0.0 - May 3, 7138 CE
1.0.0.0.0 - August 5th, 7532 CE

In no way is October 13th, 4722 CE the end date, its the 7th baktun of the next Age. This is assuming you go by the 13-baktun Cycle (where 13=0). As the article itself states the last creation date was August 11, 3114 BCE (13.0.0.0.0), and the next is definitely December 21st, 2012.

The only way you can arrive at October 13th, 4722 CE as the end date is if you go by the 19-baktun Cycle, where in 14.0.0.0.0 = March 5th, 2407 CE and 19.19.17.19.19 = October 12th, 4722 CE, but if you do that it would be incorrect since the baktun only ranges from 1-13, as stated in the article itself. There is nothing above 13, after that a new Age begins.

--Mdsats 05:58, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Who said they have an end date in this creation? There is no evidence whatsoever that there is a limit to 13 baktuns. Just because the previous creation ended on a 13th baktun doesn't mean in any way that this creation will end on a 13th baktun. For that matter there is no evidence whatsoever that the Maya had any firm date at all for the end of this creation. The baktun count absolutely does not roll over back to zero after the 13th baktun in this creation, but must continue through the 14th-19th baktuns in this creation or the calendar round on the 1 piktun date from Palenque could not be correct. 1.0.0.0.0.0 (note the five zeros) must be in 4772 CE, otherwise the entire calendar system doesn't work. --grr 16:29, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Maya and eclipse cycles

It's been pointed out to me that a Tzolkin is 1.5 times an eclipse season; ie.

2 Tzolkin = 520 days

3 eclipse seasons = 519.93 days

Coincidence? Or did the Mayans track eclipse cycles (like the ancient Babylonians)? — Johan the Ghost _seance 11:55, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Yes, it's a racing certainty that 2 × Tzolkins ≈ 3 × eclipse cycles is pure coincidence. The 260-day calendar is the oldest attested form of Mesoamerican calendar, pre-dating the Maya and any record of eclipse tables. However, the Maya were also certainly aware of the "windows" in which solar/lunar eclipses could occur, for there is ample evidence for them tracking such cycles. The tzolkin was not the mechanism by which they did this— they used calculation tables and the like for this purpose. In fact, the Dresden Codex has a far more sophisticated set of calculations than the one given above, which span 405 lunar months from a base date (equivalent to 12 Nov 755 CE) and identify "warning stations" for every one of the 77 solar eclipses in that span to within 2 days' accuracy (not all of which would have been visible from the Maya region). For lunar eclipses, 51 of 69 possible in that span are identified to within 1 day. The tables take into account precession of the nodes by interspersing the sequence of 6 lunar months with a 5 lunar month period as appropriate. Other adjustments were also made to further improve the table's accuracy.--cjllw | TALK 23:12, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for that, that's very interesting! I guess the real coincidence is that 3 eclipse seasons is so close to 520, when 520 has such "easy" factors. But I'm delighted to learn about the Maya's eclipse tracking. Cheers, — Johan the Ghost _seance 12:51, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Ian Xel Lungold and 360 days Tun calendar

according to Deaths in November 2005 which states Ian Xel Lungold, 56 American researcher, speaker and creator of the Mayan Calendar and Conversion Codex. Ian Xel Lungold is at the origin of our current knowledge of the mayan calendar. and according to Ian Xel Lungold and his experience with shaman the 365 days 13 * 28 calendar he thought was the mayan calendar was in fact the dreamspell calendar. The mayan calendar (or tun calendar)is 360 days. source [1]

You may have heard some about the Haab calendar and its 19 month divisions of each 365 days, 18 months of 20 days and 5 days in the 19th month. This is the calendar most understood by the archeologists and so the most discussed in books and class rooms. The Haab was the solar year agricultural, bookkeeping, or civil calendar of the Maya developed most by the "post classic" Maya.

What you have not heard much about is the calendar that was central to the "classic" Maya called the TUN calendar of 360 days. This TUN calendar (18 months of 20 days) is directly connected to the Tzolkin and they run together like two gears, each day being a tooth on the respective gears.

Neither of these calendars is concerned at all with our earthly orbit around our particular star.

The Maya never connected the Tzolkin and the Haab calendar together. It was the Archeologists that did that. Jose was just following what he was taught by the archeologists, he never went to the Maya to discuss any of this. Last I heard, his position was that he has made improvements on the Mayan calendar with his Dreamspell and that’s fine and dandy as his view point.

The facts are though that the math in his system is flawed to the point that one day out of every 4 years needs be erased from creation just to keep his system going. (Day out of Time)

The Maya never connected the lunar calendar and the Tzolkin together either and here we have the seeds of the problem. As of now most of the planet has been fed erroneous information about the Mayan calendar.

Pursuant to meetings that I had in Guatemala, I am under solemn oath to the Mayan Elders of the Indigenous Council to do my best to straighten out all of this calendar confusion.

The sacred Mayan calendar has nothing to do with the cycle of this planet’s orbit. The sacred Mayan calendar has nothing to do with the cycle timings of this solar system.

It is time to get a much bigger view of creation than what is going on here on this little speck of creation that we call our earth home.

The sacred Mayan calendar has nothing to do with the cycle timings of this galaxy.

All of the Physical Universe is an Effect of Cause, all structure or alignments within creation are the effects of cause.

The sacred Mayan calendar always was and still is, keeping track of the cycles of Cause and we can note, just as the Maya did throughout their history, the record of the effects generated by these causes seen in the stars, planets and in their own societies. The ancient Maya knew that they were tapped into the mind of God. We are just now figuring out how they did that.

It was their calendar.

Now we understand their sacred calendar and its purpose. It is not used to tell time.

It is a tuning device for consciousness. The Mayan calendar was always a tool to tune your consciousness and engage your intuition. By paying attention to the flow of consciousness day by day on the Tzolkin calendar for instance, you start to become entrained to the Flow of Creation and your inner knowing responds. This is the power of the 13:20 ratio getting into gear and it is why you are intuitively guided to the Mayan calendar in the first place. The astrology associated with the calendar is icing on the cake.

The meanings of the 260 days of the Tzolkin calendar are made up of intentions numbered 1- 13 and 20 different aspects of creation. Each of these days has its own purpose and flavor. It is understood by the Mayan Elders that what ever day something comes into being physically, it comes into being with the energy of the day that it manifested and that it carries that energy for the duration of its existence whether physical or in memory. This applies to the day that you were born or the day you got married, started a business, dedicated a road or a pyramid temple or what ever. So what ever Gregorian day happens to be agreed upon to start a year cycle the meaning of that whole cycle to those in agreement, is set by the intent and aspect of the Mayan calendar day that the cycle began.

2004 for example started on 3 Akabal or 3 Night on the Mayan calendar. That means that this year is intended to be strong in action and communication about the aspect of the temple or the silent womb of creation, the void and the dreams which can be harvested from there.

In other words; 2004 is a year to communicate and take action on your dreams and by so doing, build the sanctity of your inner temple. source [2]

another source is the book Solving the Greatest Mystery of Our Time: The Mayan Calendar by Carl Johan Calleman there's also a video of a conference by Ian Xel Lungold "secrets of the mayan calendar unveiled" about which Ian himself says: Showing the tapes of my talks seems to work very well. Make copies give em away or sell cheap to get this out there everywhere. I'll be doing a whole bunch of that stuff really soon myself. [3]

Maybe this info should be verified, cross referenced and added in the article. Izwalito 24 February 2006

No, none of the above merits inclusion, even as cross-reference, to the article. It's transparent hokum, and Xel Lungold or whatever he calls himself is about as obscure and non-noteworthy a 'source' as there can be. It's all too easy to conjure up incoherencies such as these; there are many hundreds of similar blatherings to be found on the web, this one merits no particular attention.--cjllw | TALK 12:36, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

seems like a quick closeminded discard with no other explanation that it is too easy to find it incoherent. If it is so easy, I'd be happy read some of the conjuring.

Most of the "similar blatherings to be found on the web" I know take source in the mayan calendar coming to an end on december 2012 which is exposed in the same book Ian Xel Lungold based his work upon which is "Solving the Greatest Mystery of Our Time: The Mayan Calendar" by Carl Johan Calleman [4]. Carl Calleman himself says that it is a common misconception to believe that the mayan calendar is about "something" that will happen "in 2012". [5]

BTW if you check the first external link of the article which says "Source of most of this text" [6] it is one of these very websites and includes a link that very book and moreover this source loops back to the wikipedia article.

according to my readings Ian Xel Lungold and Carl Calleman worked together on the mayan calendar subject before the release of the book, and Lungold help Calleman in editing the book.

It should also be noted that Ian Xel Lungold changed his name from Philip Louis Wieme and has been a member of scientology for 9 years. [7] [8]

I understand a guy who has changed his name and has been a member of scientology can be looked upon as a dubious source of knowledge, but when it is the maya world studies center based in Merida, Yucatan, Mexico [9] who talks about the Tun calendar, I think you'll agree it is worth paying attention to what they have to say.

Some time afterwards the Maya started to notice the time it took the Sun to complete it's yearly cycle and the length of it was established in 28 thirteen-day periods which added up to 364 days, a length that did not adjust exactly to the cycle. We suppose that the astronomers and the mathematicians had different opinions and while the former held up that the exact measure of the cycle should be used the latter insisted in having a time period as close as possible to the real one that would make calculations simple, that is, a multiple of 20. Finally they agreed to create a 360 day year for calendric calculations they called Tun, it was divided in 18 months of 20 days, called the Uinal, each with a distinct name and numbers from 0 to 19 were also given to their component days. Then a period of five days called uayeb was added to the Tun year and this gave birth to the Haab calendar. In this calendar the uayeb were placed just before the beginning of the astronomical year. The Tzolkin and the Haab were then coordinated and this gave place to the calendar round. source [10]

My guess is that having an article about mayan calendars sourced in the publishing of the maya world studies center is better than in armageddononline.org.

Izwalito 24 February 2006

Izwalito, far from being a "closeminded discard" of the writings of Lungold and Calleman, my position is actually informed by some understanding of what over a century of serious Mayanist scholarship has had to say on the subject, as well an understanding of the history of how this knowledge was derived. That the present Long Count cycle completes in December 2012 is not in dispute; however neither Lungold nor Calleman can claim credit for this. The essentials of the calendar system were worked out as long ago as 1880 by Ernst Förstermann, and the correlation between the Long Count system and our present western (Julian/Gregorian) calendar now overwhelmingly accepted was first published by Joseph Goodman in 1905, and later refined and confirmed by Martinez Hernandez and J. Eric S. Thompson. It has been understood for over 70 years, and the great strides which have been made in the decipherment of Maya hieroglyphics since the 1950s have only further confirmed the details. I'd recommend Michael Coe's Breaking the Maya Code for a very readable account on the history of Mayanist scholarship.

Having read through Lungold's and Calleman's writings on that mayamajix site you provide, far from providing any innovation or exposé in this area it is quite evident that they have merely taken the basics from popular credible accounts such as Coe's and only added to it a veneer of New Ageist terminology, without even a pretence to have found such references in the texts actually left behind by the Classic Maya themselves (since such references do not exist). Phrases such as "tuning device for consciousness", "Flow of Creation" and "sanctity of your inner temple" ought to alert one to the esoteric (and unsubstantiated) nature of their contributions, and the links on that site to UFO sites, Bigfoot DVDs and the like only bolster the case for scepticism.

They are right however to criticise Jose Arguelles' "Dreamspell" calendar as a pure fabrication (for an effective debunking of his speculations, see here), but their own interpretations are similarly flawed, where they are comprehensible— just what is "All of the Physical Universe is an Effect of Cause" supposed to mean anyway?

Far from Lungold being "at the origin of our current knowledge of the mayan calendar", he and like-minded enthusiasts are, I'm afraid, at its outmost periphery- can you provide a single reference supporting his ideas from any established scholar?

As further examples of their conjuring:

• The Maya never connected the Tzolkin and the Haab calendar together. This statement is patently false, given the interaction of these two to form the Calendar Round, which appears in thousands of extant Maya inscriptions.
• The Maya never connected the lunar calendar and the Tzolk'in together. So what? They are different cycles. The statement is false when considering Initial Series glyphs, where Tzolk'in and and Lunar Series glyphs are combined (with others) in statements which fix an event to a Long Count date and the corresponding position of the Calendar Round and Lunar phase.
• The "Tun" (360-day) calendar they claim to have identified appears to be indistinguishable from the tun component (= 18 × winal "months") of the Long Count, this is hardly a discovery.
• Assuming by "sacred mayan calendar" he refers to the completion of 18 20-day "months", the various pronouncements that it is not (directly or alone) a record of earth's, the solar system's, or the galaxy's 'cycles' is again not a revelation. However, in combination with other cycles it is quite clear that aspects of the calendar do indeed track astronomical cycles, and in particular the Long Count does indeed fix events in linear time, and furthermore the Maya recorded and thought of events occurring in linear time. This site is well worth a look for a (serious) overview on Maya calendrics.

As for the armageddononline link, that appears to have been there a while and it actually reproduces material from wikipedia, not the other way around, and is not in fact the source for much of the article - thanks for pointing it out, I'll remove it.

The 'Maya World Studies Center' is not, despite its name, some "official" repository of Mayanist scholarship (far more comprehensive and recognised sites can be found at mesoweb and famsi, which contain many publications from accredited scholars). Its contents are fairly unremarkable and high-level summaries, and actually incorrect insofar as the passage you quote ascribes the calendar creation to the Maya - the Mesoamerican calendars pre-date the Maya civilization.

If you think there is anything specific of actual substance in the Lungold or other sources being unfairly treated, by all means mention them explicitly here on the talk page and their merits or otherwise can be discussed. From what I have read of them, I remain completely sceptical.--cjllw | TALK 02:05, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for these precisions, more that kind of discussion i was expecting in the first place. I understand this was not a closed minded discard but it looked like one to my novice eyes, sorry if I offended you in any way.

Just for the record, I'm not a supporter of Lungold or Calleman, and I'm not looking forward to give credits to John or Jane Doe for a 'discovery' (to my limited knowledge neither of them claims discovery). Let's focus on the subject that matters, mayan calendar and quality of this particular wikipedia article. Maybe I wasn't clear and pasting a big chunk of text wasn't the brightest idea, but my point here is improving the article. As I consider I don't know enough about the subject to edit the article I came here to discuss first.

I'm lacking spare time at the moment to properly dig for information, but I'll read about it ASAP.

Anyways IMHO it would be valuable to the article to add sections about the other calendars (I heard there's about 20 of them), even wrong ones such as the dreamspell. A good reason for that is the difficulty to find quality information about this on the web.

Izwalito 7 March 2006

Suggested Revisions

The first section states that natural phenomena such as the solar and lunar years can be tracked by the calendar. This is wrong. The Haab is only a vague solar year of 365 days and it diverges from the solar year of 365.2422 days over time. There is no lunar year in the Maya Calendar - only a series of six counted lunations.

The section about the end of the world is wrong. Yes, the Maya did ritual calculations way into the past and future but the people of the new world also believed that the world had been created and destroyed four times before. These are the four rectangular glyphs surrounding the center of the Stone of the Fifth Sun ("Aztec Calendar Stone"). The writer of this section states that 12.19.19.17.19 is only the end of a baktun but it is really the end of the thirteen baktuns of the Fifth Sun and is an end of the world date. The Maya told Diego de Landa this and painted a picture for his relacion that depicts the war god raining down projectile weapons to end the world.

It seems to me that there are three problems dogging the study of the Maya Calendar today:

1. Use of the Proleptic Gregorian Calendar. In reading books about calendars and astronomical algorithms I have never seen any reference to this. If as I believe, this system was invented by Thompson to make it easier for him to do the calculations in the pre-computer era and is only used by those attempting to do Maya Calendar calculations then we should abandon it.

2. The debate about the correlation constant was dead and buried until Linda Schele advocated the use of Lounsbury's correlation in her popular Maya book A Forest of Kings. In her own writing she says "I'm not a numbers person." and "I really don't understand these things.". Also she was urged not to write about this by Dennis Tedlock who really knew about it and told her that there were at least 18 other suggested hierophanies that were as good as Lounsbury's and that Lounsbury's made significant mistakes. In Wikipedia we are writing to educate people looking for information and should probably not muddy the waters by resurecting the debate about correlations.

3. Weird pseudoscientific spiritualisic gobblygook by writers like Jose Arguelles. An article about the Maya Calendar should be simple and stick to the facts about the calendar, not bizarre theories.

Rather than starting an editing war I wanted to put this here. If anyone can tell me what is wrong with the above statements maybe I wouldn't edit the page to reflect it.

206.54.78.72 18:16, 6 April 2006 (UTC)Tlaloc

I would have to agree with most of this, but I'm not crazy enough to edit these pages. ("Edit war! Edit war! Dance to the music!") I'd even go so far as to say these sorts of problems are holding back Maya studies in general.

The proleptic Julian calendar was in fairly common use, the proleptic Gregorian less so, but neither one was invented by Thompson. (See The Calendar FAQ.) Using a proleptic calendar does greatly simplify calculations when trying to calculate date spans. They aren't used much anymore, thanks to computers.

And kids, the multitude of wacko links at the end of the article have got to go. The world is not going to end in 2011, or 2012, or 2013. There are no mystical vibrations associated with the Maya, the Maya calendar, the Long Count, etc. It's just a calendar system and a number, and I can't understand why Wikipedia would want to support the scam artists coming up with this nonsense. (Blue Spectral Monkey, indeed.) 12.103.251.203 18:02, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Actually it is quite easy to do conversions to/from julian day numbers using algorithms developed by astronomers. 216.67.161.197 14:11, 15 April 2006 (UTC)Tlaloc

"The Classic Period Maya obviously did not believe that the end of this age would occur in 2012. According to the Maya, there will be a baktun ending in 2012, a significant event being the end of a 13th 400 year period, but not the end of the world."

- This is leading and uncorroborated. You (the writer) may have come to this conclusion in your own research, but it is an opinion and not a fact. Perhaps the Mayan's did believe the end of this age would occur in 2012...or perhaps you have conversed with them using time travel or astral projection ;)

it'll be reverted anyways.

Glottal Stops

None of the books that I have about the Maya and the calendar spell the names of the days of the Tzolk'in with as many glottal stops (') as the chart of the Tzolk'in in the article. The chart also seems to be unattributed so it's hard to know if it's correct.

None of the names in the list of Haab month names is spelled with a glottal stop. According to my sources, Yaxk'in, Ch'en, K'ank'in and K'ayab all have them.

The glottal stop is not used in English so we tend to ignore it but it is as important to languages that use it as any other phonym.

Perhaps some linguist familiar with Yucatec could help with this.

206.54.110.21 20:34, 11 June 2006 (UTC)Tlaloc

The orthography of the Tzolk'in day names given in the table follows (as is noted) the orthography standardised by the Academia de las Lenguas Mayas de Guatemala, and as published by that institution in Lenguas Mayas de Guatemala: Documento de referencia para la pronunciación de los nuevos alfabetos oficiales (1988), Instituto Indigenista Nacional, Guatemala (document 1). The Academy's site seems to be unavailable, but this orthography is reproduced elsewhere, such as here. Most (but not all) Mayanist scholars have subsequently adopted this orthography (albeit with differences over when to apply it for toponyms and other commonly-used expressions) in preference over the 'older' orthography which derives from 16thC. spanish transcription of Yucatec (or Yukatek, per the academy). I will add in an explicit footnote/reference and ext link for this and an example publication which follows the convention.

The (') symbol used here does not (for these particular words) represent a glottal stop (in the sense of a distinct phoneme), but is rather the manner chosen to mark what are ejective consonants or stops, and is "part of" the preceding character (ie <b'> not <b><'>, <k'> not <k><'>, etc). One of the prime arguments for observing this orthography is that most Mayan languages have phonemic contrasts between non-glottalised and glottalised consonants, and so [ k ] is different to [ k' ] (eg. kan—"four", k'an—"yellow, ripe"). The orthography only uses <b'> not <b> for voiced bilabial, however (presumably it's always glottalised), and so Akbal (16thC orthog.) becomes Ak'b'al.

The Haab' names had not (as you observed) been updated from the old orthography, I've gone through those now and made them consistent. Both orthographies should be mentioned, particularly since most pre-1990s publications use the 'old' form and they remain familiar, but in presenting them we need to make clear which is the orthography being used.--cjllw | TALK 03:43, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Questionable Caption

Madman:

I like the llustration of an early Long Count date that you have added to the section about Calculating Long Count Dates but the craption has big problems. First It says that the date is in 162, then it gives the date as 6/23/152. So Which year is it? Using the Julian calendar I calculate the date as 7/14/156. Even a calculation using the proleptic Gregorian calendar shouldn't be this far off from mine. What correlation constant and calendar are you using?

If it's really wrong then maybe it should be elimnated. 206.54.110.92 13:28, 10 August 2006 (UTC)Tlaloc

Right you are, Kenny. Good catch. I can only ascribe this to a loose nut on the keyboard or the heavy ingestion of psychotropic substances. I have corrected the caption. Thanks, Madman 14:18, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Who's Kenny? 206.54.110.92 20:33, 10 August 2006 (UTC)Tlaloc

Why, Kenny Blankenship from MXC, of course!  :) This hilarious TV program is both silly and clever, and the more you know about American culture, the funnier it is. "Right you are, Kenny" is a tag line used by the inappropriately-named Vic Romano. Madman 21:20, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

P.S. BTW I'm looking for someone to touch-up that photo to highlight the glyphs. I suppose I could trace them myself using, say, MS Paint, but that seems way too labourious and clumsy. Madman

Problems with Gregorian calendar

The problems with the calculations from Maya calendar to the Gregorian calendar and vice versa are overstated.

1. Historical research. If you sources use another calendar than your date-calculating-program, do a conversion before you enter dates in your program. (most likely: a rather trivial conversion from Julian date to Gregorian date). 2. Astronomical research. After you calculate the Julian day number of a Maya-date. You can convert this Julian day number without problems to any other calendar.

There is a problem if you mix up dates from different calendars but this goes for all date-conversions. Pukkie 06:27, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Problem for Astronomy Software?

The article states: The use of software that is based on the proleptic Gregorian calendar can be problematic for.... Astronomical research. For example, to study ancient observations on stelae or in the codices, one may convert a Long Count to days, months, and years. This date would then be entered into an astronomy program. The astronomy program will use the standard Julian/Gregorian calendar so this will cause a major error.

I've read and reread this section, but it's not at all clear to me why this should be so. Perhaps it could be clarified for the less sharp among us. Lusanaherandraton 08:05, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Read about the Julian and Gregorian calendars. Consider that the proleptic Gregorian calendar isn't used in astronomy (or much of anything else except Maya calendar software). A brief explanation of this was in the article but was removed in favor of refering people to articles about these calendars. 204.227.223.63 20:03, 14 August 2006 (UTC)Tlaloc

Important information about calendars:

In 46 BC Julius Caesar decreed that the calendar would consist of twelve months of approximately 30 days each and that there would be an extra day in February every four years. This is the Julian calendar. The length of the year in the Julian calendar was 365.25 days - close to the length of the solar year of 365.2422 days. By 1582 there was a significant distance between Christmas and the winter solstice and Easter and the spring equinox. Pope Gregory XIII, with help from astronomer Luigi Lillo, reformed the calendar. Ten days were removed from October so that the fourth was followed by the 15th and the system of leap years was changed so that centuries are only leap years if they are evenly divisible by 400 so for example 2000 was a leap year but 1900 wasn't. This is the Gregorian calendar. Dates before 46 BC are converted to Julian calendar dates. This is called the proleptic Julian calendar.

Another important factor in calculating calendar dates is the fact that there are two ways of naming years before one. In historical dating the year 1 BC (or BCE). is followed by 1 A.D. In astronomical dating there is a year 0 so -1 is followed by 0 which is followed by 1. Since numerical systems have a value of zero this makes sense for anyone trying to do calendric calculations.

The Julian/Gregorian calendar is the standard way of doing these calculations and is the way that people doing Maya calendar calculations convert Long Count 0,0,0,0,0 to Monday, September 6 -3113 (3114 BC).

Many of the books about the Maya and most of the software available for Maya calendar conversions uses a revisionist system of calendrics called the proleptic Gregorian calendar. In this system all dates before October 15th, 1582 are converted to the Gregorian calendar, including Gregorian leap centuries, as if it had been in use all along. This is how one converts Long Count 0,0,0,0,0 to August 11th, 3114 BC.

204.227.223.63 23:35, 14 August 2006 (UTC)Tlaloc

Since different cultures adopted the Gregorian calendar at different times, using the proleptic Gregorian calendar provides a consistent scheme in talking about western dates. It's not just 1582 (the date that Catholic states switched) that's the problem. If you are looking at a date written in the 1600's, and it happens to be an English document, it's still in the Julian date system since the English (and their colonies, including the United States) didn't make the switch until 1752. No matter when you want to apply the switch, there is a date when you must drop days from the calendar. The proleptic Gregorian calendar has the advantage that there is never a time when 10 or so days just vanish from the calendar that you have to take into account. The Julian/Gregorian thing is especially problematic since Spain (a Catholic state) made the switch in 1582, right at the time that many colonial documents about the Maya were being written...so if trying to figure out calendrics, you need to be very aware of what date system they were the using when they wrote the document. A good Maya calendar program avoids the issue of the switch by showing both proleptic Gregorian and Julian dates side by side. --grr 16:51, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Another way to provide a consistent scheme for talking about wastern dates would be to use the Julian calendar for modern dates. The Orthodox church never accepted Gregorian calendar reform and still uses the Julian calendar today.

Requested move

Maya calendar → Mayan calendar – It seems like Mayan is the adjective and so it should be what modifies calendar. -- tariqabjotu (joturner) 05:13, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Survey

Add "* Support" or "* Oppose" followed by an optional one-sentence explanation, then sign your opinion with ~~~~

• Support all; just for the record, and for ease of counting viewpoints. -- tariqabjotu (joturner) 05:20, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
• Support I now support the change per the reasons of Kaufman & Justeson. Maunus 06:59, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose. These "Maya" titles are proper; "Mayan" would be inproper or slangy usage. -- Infrogmation 14:15, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose Maya is both a noun and adjective. Mayan should only be used for the language. — Joe Kress 16:32, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose, per reasons above and as argued at WP:MESO/G.--cjllw | TALK 04:37, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Discussion

Add any additional comments

There are contexts where "maya" is more widely used as an adjective than mayan. Eg. Maya society (24.200 google hits) but Mayan society (14.200 google hits), Maya archeology (2.350 google hits) but Mayan acheology (526 google hits), maya hieroglyphs (66.800 google hits), but mayan hieroglyphs (19.600 google hits). The last time we discussed this it was agreed that Mayan was only to be used to modify languages > mayan languages.Maunus 06:59, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Current naming is per standards decided on by Wikipedia:WikiProject Mesoamerica. Any renaming of these articles really needs to be discussed as a change of naming standards by the project. -- Infrogmation 22:00, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Actually askingn around people seem to agree that the adjective should be mayan. If someone can show me the rationale behind this idea I could be swayed to support the maya>mayan change.(although of courdse not as extensively as the now reverted changed would have done) Maunus 09:07, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Asking around who, where? Wondering, -- Infrogmation 15:26, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

some of my linguistically inclined friends. I still havent heard any reasoning behind their preference though.Maunus 15:57, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

In the field of linguistics the more usual convention would indeed be to use Mayan, so your colleagues may be speaking from that frame of reference. However, in all other fields there's a marked preference for Maya only. For some explicit statements of this convention, see this introductory text at the Mesoweb site, and Endnote #1 in this summary by Mathews at Famsi. Thus the guideline at WP:MESO/G- "Mayan" for linguistics, "Maya" per everything else. This is of course just a convention, and one which is not always observed even in scholarly publications - however a review of the non-linguistic ones will show it is the convention most frequently applied. There are a number of others who consciously prefer Mayan over Maya- see for eg Justeson & Kaufmann's view, explained here. However I don't see a reason to change the current convention in en.wiki. --cjllw | TALK 00:41, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Comment. Actually, I'd support a move to Maya calendars, in the plural, since there are really a number of calendric systems covered here.--cjllw | TALK 08:15, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

I disagree. The Maya calendar consists of a number of parts, but all appear together in the typical Initial Series on most stellae. This just means that it is much more complicated than the typical old world calendar, which uses only a day, month and year, each identified in many different ways (the Pawukon calendar used in Indonesia is an exception). But the Maya did not identify the year, so they tripled the month and day info to compensate, using the haab, tzolkin, and long count portions (at least during the Classical period). — Joe Kress 17:16, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

OK. I suppose it depends on how you look at it. I was thinking more along the lines of a few other counts and cycles we presently barely touch upon here, such as the 819-day count and its extension into a cycle of 3276 days. Although the inscriptions correlate starting points for this count by counting back from Long Count dates, the relation between it and the LC is unclear. There's also the Postclassic Short Count, which I guess could be seen as merely an abbreviated LC, but its non-repetitive length is different at around 256 yrs. Others which could bear mentioning are the proposed 7-day count, and also for consideration whether to mention in this context other tracked astronomical cycles such as for venus & mars.--cjllw | TALK 06:23, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Should "Long Count" be a separate article??

Fellow editors: I have been doing a bit of work on the Long Count calendar on other articles (0 (number) and La Mojarra Stela 1 among them) and it would be easier for me to link back to the Long Count "article" contained within Maya calendar if Long Count were its own article.

Moreover, I think that the Maya 260-day, the 365-day, and the Long Count calendars are sufficiently separate matters and, at 33kb, this article is getting rather large.

Thoughts?? Madman 15:15, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Sounds fine to me. IMO first we should decide if "Long Count" should be the article title or some variation on the phrase. then spin it off into a seperate article, with a short summary and link here. -- Infrogmation 17:42, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Madman: you're mad. The Long Count is part of the Maya calendar and you can't split this up.216.67.161.95 18:27, 17 August 2006 (UTC)Tlaloc

This is not a justification. Please, avoid personal attacks. -- Szvest 18:38, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Tlaloc, I don't think Madman is suggesting that mention of the Maya LC be removed from this article, but instead that there is more than enough material to write on the LC itself to justify it having its own article. Also, LC inscriptions are known for a couple of other Mesoamerican cultures apart from the Maya.

I think that overall there's ample scope and material to justify a set of articles on the individual components of these calendars, and in fact we should have articles on each at both the Mesoamerican and individual-culture levels (some we already have, others need creating). For example:

• Mesoamerican calendars
  • Maya calendar, Aztec calendar, Zapotec calendar, etc
    • Mesoamerican 260-day calendars
      • tzolk'in, tonalpohualli, etc
    • Mesoamerican 365-day calendars
      • haab', Aztec 365-day calendar (or solar calendar- name?), etc
    • Calendar Round (or Mesoamerican Calendar Round?)
      • Maya Calendar Round, Aztec Calendar Round (or yearbearer cycle?), etc

and so on.

For the LC in particular, we could have both

• Mesoamerican Long Count (or just Long Count, or Long Count calendar, or...?
  • Maya Long Count (or Maya Long Count calendar..?)

Madman, I would suggest however that if you're keen to expand upon the (Mesoamerican) LC that you do so first (or also) at Mesoamerican calendars, which should give an overview and guide to all such systems with sections/{main} links to the more specific articles.

Per Infrogmation, need to decide upon appropriate titles- do we need to preface generic-sounding titles such as Long Count, Calendar Round, with a cultural qualifier (Mesoamerican, Maya, etc) in all instances? At the moment I think that might be best, but open to other suggestions.--cjllw | TALK 01:07, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Do Maya calendar glyphs each mean something?

The Aztec calendar glyphs each have a common cultural reference, usually an animal (buzzard, snake, dog), but they also include flint/knife, flower, and even rain, death, motion/earthquake, and wind.

Based on my readings, it would seem that each of the 20 day glyphs/signs in the Maya Calendar also represent "things", probably pretty much the same things in pretty much the same order. If this is true, perhaps these references could be noted in the article.

Just a thought, Madman 15:06, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Agree that more on the various associations of calendric elements and calendric periods should be expanded on here, such as those you mention but also others such as patron deities, ceremonial or ritual observances, significance of period-endings, etc.

The interpreted associations of particular named days in the Mesoamerican 260-day calendar are roughly similar between known cultural instances of it, with exceptions and variations between (and sometimes within) cultures and region/time period. The tzolk'in article gives one version of common associations of each of the named days for the Maya calendar, for eg.

The particular example glyphs given here are logograms, a few of which contain or comprise of visual clues relating to the day's name/interpretation/association. The glyphs themselves can (when appearing in a different context) have a different, non-calendric meaning, including in some cases a phonemic one- either on their own or in combination with other glyphic elements.

Probably detailed accounts of these associations etc could when written appear in specific articles such as tzolk'in, haab' & so on, while some summary or high-level explanation can appear here (and in the general case at the Mesoamerica-level articles).--cjllw | TALK 00:21, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Extra Cyle Information

I gleaned this off another calendar website awhile ago. (wish i had the link) but what of the extra cycles than what is on the page here?

Cycle	Composed of	Total Days	Years (approx.)
kin	1
uinal	20 kin	20
tun	18 uinal	360	0.986
katun	20 tun	7200	19.7
baktun	20 katun	144,000	394.3
piktun	20 baktun	2,880,000	7,885
calabtun	20 piktun	57,600,000	157,704
kinchiltun	20 calabtun	1,152,000,000	3,154,071
alautun	20 kinchiltun	23,040,000,000	63,081,429

--—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Goodrob (talk • contribs) 24 October 2006.

The higher-order cycles and their pseudo names are briefly mentioned in the article, but I suppose they could be expanded upon a little more. However, since the article is already quite lengthy, I think it may be time to (re-)split some of the subtopics (eg Maya Long Count calendar into their own separate articles, and use the present one to summarise the main points and organise the related material (see also earlier discussion on this, somewhere above).--cjllw | TALK 23:36, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

The site is http://www.fourmilab.ch/documents/calendar/ . I don't know about the cycles. Reywas92^Talk 21:34, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Month names & agrarian association

I've removed the following passage from the text claiming month names have a seasonal/agrarian association and/or origin:

The Haab' was the foundation of the agrarian calendar and the month names are based on the seasons and agricultural events. For example the thirteenth month, Mak, may refer to the end of the rainy season and the fourteenth month, K'ank'in, may refer to ripe crops in the fall.

While it probably comes from some source (perhaps the Foster reference), I do not think this is a standard (certainly not the only) interpretation. It can be re-added if the source is identified, and an appropriate context or note of relative standing and acceptance is provided.--cjllw | TALK 01:43, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

0 to 12 Baktuns

There are 13 Baktuns, numbered 0 -> 12 so many of the Long Count Dates in the article are incorrect. Think about it. If the the Baktun number could be 13 then there would be 14 baktuns - numbered 0 to 13.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 216.67.161.230 (talk) 20:02, 5 December 2006 (UTC).

No, there were 20 Baktuns, numbered 0 to 19. It is a myth that the baktuns stopped being counted at 13. The previous creation ended on one of many 13th baktun's, but that doesn't affect the argument. (Arguments about the whether 0 really meant zero or completion of the previous unit to be deferred to place.) --grr 16:57, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

According to what sources? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 216.67.161.139 (talk) 16:27, 23 December 2006 (UTC).

If you just think about what you're saying you will realize that you are wrong. All Maya calendar dates count forward from the creation of the fifth sun on 0.0.0.0.0 4 Ahau 8 Kumk'u - Monday, September 6th, -3113 Julian astronomical. If as you and the author of this part of the article say, there are 20 Bak'tuns and this date was really 13.0.0.0.0 then the Bak'tuns wouldn't have reached zero until seven more Bak'tuns had elapsed and 0.0.0.0.0 would occur on what everyone else calls 7.0.0.0.0 Monday June 8th, -353 Julian astronomical. We would still be in the 7th Bak'tun and the end of the 13th Bak'tun would still be 5 Bak'tuns away (2,766 more years). All the Long Count inscriptions such as 10.0.0.0.0 (Wednesday, March 9th, 830 Julian) would not even have occurred yet. The G.M.T. correlation would also have to be revised by 2,766 years. It is possible that there are 20 Baktuns but if so then the day before the creation of the fifth sun was 19.19.19.17.19 and the creation date of the fifth sun would still be 0.0.0.0.0. If there are 20 Bak'tuns then why would they go from 13 to zero on the creation date? The Calendar Round didn't zero on the creation date so why would the Long Count? I suggest that anyone interested in this read Anthony Aveni's wonderfull book that is cited in the references.

Long Count units K'ins, Winals, Tuns and K'atuns and months in the Haab are all counted from zero but according to the article Bak'tuns use 13 insead of zero and are counted as 13, 1... This is wrong.

Monitoring this article for vandalism

This article has some topics that seem to be controversial. Some people don't seem to get that the world isn't going to end in 2012. I have fixed the information 2012 section several times after vandalism. Each time I check it for modifications, it seems to be messed with inaccurate information. Can this get locked down more? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Grr (talk • contribs) 09:11, 8 January 2007 (UTC).

You think that anyone who edits this part of the article in a way you disagree with is a vandal. This is not vandalism. Locking stuff you don't like is contrary to the idea of Wiki because it's supposed to be a collaboration. Maybe they're right and you're wrong. The 5 in the piktuns place is because we live in the fifth sun and we are aproaching the sixth sun, 5.0.0.0.0.0. If you had read the article you would have seen that all of the other references to the completion of the 13 baktun cycles use 0, not 13. This issue could be debated and a solution could be reached but your attitude that you are the ultimate authority on the subject is not helpful. If you really want to contribute to this article you should register and debate this on your talk page. Also there is evidence that the end of the fifth sun is an end of the world date for example in Diego de Landa's Relacion. I didn't revert your edits but I support whoever did. Another issue for me is that the text about this subject references Linda Schele. Linda was a briliant epigrapher but didn't understand the calendar. In her own writings about this subject she said "you must understand I am not a number person" and described at great length how she really didn't understand this before resurecting the Thompson correlation in her book. Obviously there are better sources for understanding the calendar then her. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 216.67.161.139 (talk) 16:47, 8 January 2007 (UTC).