Talk:Maya calendar/Archives/2007/August

Dr. Carl Johan Calleman

It was disappointing to see how readily the work of Dr. Calleman was dismissed. Obviously those who are so willing to overlook his work aren't familiar with the support it receives. The Mayan Calendar originated within the Quiché Mayan culture, and they're still the keepers of these teachings. The head of the elder council that guards the teachings, Don Alejandro Oxlaj, is described as follows:

"Don Alejandro is charged as the primary keeper of the teachings, visions and prophecies of the Mayan people. He is head of the National Mayan Council of Elders of Guatemala, Day Keeper of the Mayan Calendar, a 13th generation Quiche Mayan High Priest and a Grand Elder of the Continental Council of Elders and Spiritual Guides of the Americas." [1]

This man is an adamant supporter, and even promoter, of Carl Calleman's work.

pixiequix 17:14, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

No, I think we're quite familiar enough with the nature of any 'support' for Dr (of Physical Biology) Calleman's ideas— in particular, the fact that his ideas have absolutely no support in, and are refuted by, qualified Mesoamerican scholarship. Even among Calleman's fellow-travellers in the mini-industry of populist esoteric writing about alleged significance of the "Maya" calendar & its "end-date", of which there are many dozens, his ideas have attracted very little support (in fact, many of these explicitly criticise him- see for eg this demolition by another prominent alternative proponent, John Major Jenkins, which among other epithets describes Dr C's approach as "distraction, deception, and self-magnification"). Calleman is completely on his own with his supposed identification of Oct 28 2011 as the 'Maya calendar end-date'; at least all the other Maya calendar enthusiasts retain the Dec 2012 date even if they then ignore/distort other results of conventional scholarship.

There's even considerable doubt over the nature and extent of the 'support' for his ideas that Calleman ascribes to Don Alejandro- see this lengthy exchange between Dr C. & JMJ, where the former signally fails to back up his assertions. As JMJ implies Don Alejandro has over time taken various positions depending on whichever New Age interpretation is then in vogue, and that whatever authority self-styled contemporary Maya Elders & daykeepers like Alejandro & Hunbatz Men may speak from, there is no continuous use of the Long Count from pre-Columbian times and their knowledge of it is via its 'rediscovery' by 20thC scholars, not something that has been passed down generation to generation. And in any case the Maya calendar is not "originated within the Quiché Mayan culture", but as the sources to this and other articles like Mesoamerican Long Count calendar show the earliest LC examples are not even from the Maya region.--cjllw ʘ TALK 05:21, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but no. It just doesn't appear logical to write off an entire sub-section of Mayan scholarship that you view as being invalid, AND THEN using the transparent bitching of people within those circles to make your own stance valid. That would lead to whatever you put forth with that reasoning being deemed invalid by your very own standards.

What's behind John Jenkins' opposition and repeated character assassinations? It's pretty simple:

"For some time now there has been a discussion going on as to what is the exact end date of the Mayan calendar. This debate was recently fueled by the rejection by Don Alejandro Oxlaj, head of the council of elders of the Maya, of the December 21, 2012 date promoted by archeologists. A newcomer to this field may be surprised at the aggressiveness this statement has been responded to at web pages such as John Jenkins'. This aggressiveness, which by the way has been directed more against me than to Don Alejandro, who actually made the statement attests to the importance of the question and especially the understanding of the cosmic plan that lies underneath it. Hopefully Don Alejandro’s rejection (in no uncertain terms) of the December 21, 2012 end date will mean that some will dig deeper to understand the evolution of consciousness and make an attempt to understand what this end date really is based on." [2]

The originators of the Long Count were presumably Epi Olmec, but use of the many Mesoamerican calendar systems has long been an important aspect of Mayan culture.[3] Don Alejandro is a shamanic priest who uses the Maya Calendar as a divination tool. His title of Ah K'in or "Day Keeper" refers to the cultural role as keepers or guardians of all the teachings and history of the Maya Calendar.

pixiequix 11:29, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't quite follow the reasoning in the opening to your latest response above. In your original posting, you comment that it is "disappointing to see how readily the work of Dr. Calleman was dismissed", given the "support it receives".

In my reply, I pointed out that Calleman's ideas do not actually receive any support from qualified academic researchers in fields relating to Mesoamerican and Mayanist scholarship. You'd be welcome to indicate any endorsements, positive mentions, or even citations of Calleman's work in peer-reviewed Mesoamerican/Mayanist journals or books, that I may have missed: but AFAIK these are yet to surface.

Nor, IMO, can Calleman's theories properly be considered as formal Maya scholarship, or even a "sub-section" of it— his qualifications are in an unrelated field (toxicology), and he does not publish his work in scientific journals or conferences. That does not automatically discount his views or render them uninteresting or noteworthy, but just as for other theorists like JMJ who weigh-in from 'outside' the field, until their ideas are at least entertained by mainstream sources they will remain, by definition, outside & non-specialist views.

I mentioned JMJ's criticisms of Calleman to indicate that even among nonstandard interpretations & theorists, Dr. C's proposals can attract a good deal of scepticism- particularly his idiosyncratic adoption of Oct 28, 2011 as a significant date, but also on other areas. Quite likely some of that scepticism arises from Calleman being a 'competitor' in the market for alternative calendar theories, but that doesn't necessarily mean all of that scepticism is misplaced.

So far, you have here only the reported endorsement (as reported by Calleman himself, not visible in anything directly attributable to the subject or another source) of a contemporary Maya 'daykeeper'. Don Alejandro may very well be an authority on the modern interpretations of the local highlands calendric & divinatory traditions he hails from. But that does not also make him the authority or custodian of all Maya calendric knowledge, from whatever region or from whatever time period. There is, for example, no established continuity of knowledge about the Long Count from the pre-Columbian through to the present.--cjllw ʘ TALK 05:52, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Looking at Calleman's site one immediately sees the statement "Where Science and Spirituality meet". I don't see any science, only spirituality and merchandising. In fact by clicking on the hyperlinks on the site I can't find any edifying information about the calendar. This Wikipedia article is about the Maya calendar NOT new-age spirituality. Maybe you should write a Wikipedia article about new age spirituality and its love affair with the Maya Calendar, but it doesn't belong here because this is a scientific article. Senor Cuete 16:24, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

"Don Alejandro may very well be an authority on the modern interpretations of the local highlands calendric & divinatory traditions he hails from."

That's exactly what I thought would be interesting to expand upon. In his writings, Calleman refers to the Mayan's modern and ancient interpretaions, and shamanic or divinatory uses of the calendar. And I think it can be quite interesting.

BTW, thanks to both of you for regarding me with such derision and condescension.
It makes me feel all warm and fuzzy.

pixiequix 05:33, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, I'm sorry you take this debate as condescension, it is not intended that way. All I am trying to point out is that if you want to try and establish that Calleman's ideas are regarded with any merit, then what's needed is a few reliable, third-party and (crucially) independent sources that say something along those lines. Calleman's own assessment of his ideas clearly won't do for that, nor any supposed endorsements that Calleman himself describes, such as (what he reports as being) Don Alejandro's views. Where, for example, are the citations and mentions in peer-reviewed Mesoamericanist scholarship that say, "hey, you know, Calleman may be on to something here?"

Until it can be established that his theories are substantively entertained beyond Calleman's own inner-circle, then Calleman's ideas are rightfully and accurately characterised as fringe theories— by definition. As such, they are at best tangential to this article, and there's no call to document them in any detail (if at all), here. If you think Calleman and his ideas to be notable or well-known enough, then why not start an article on him.--cjllw ʘ TALK 01:24, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Great Year

Has anybody mentioned adding a relation to the Great Year on the Astrological Age page? They're obviously variations of the same concept. And both end on the same day.Jiminezwaldorf 07:44, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

No, I don't think anybody has, but then again, I don't see any reason to. There is simply no connection at all between the 'astrological ages' of western traditions and the Maya calendar, even if some more modern esoteric sources think they see one (am presuming that you mean, should we mention the astrological age article here at Maya calendar, or vice versa).--cjllw ʘ TALK 04:42, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

It seems like the first question doesn't refer to the Mayan calendar at all. A Great Year need not refer to 'astological ages', but can instead refer to a measure of time. The relation would be analagous to comparing days, months and years to measures of time by the Mayan calendar.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.229.113.252 (talk • contribs) 16 November 2007

Call for Arbitration

I think this page needs to be reviewed by a qualified Astro-archeologist.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 218.167.174.141 (talk • contribs) 14 August 2007.

What you mean to say is an archeoastronomer and there are very few. I suggest that if something troubles you it should be discussed here. Without knowing what you don't like it's impossible to know what to discuss. Like many wiki articles this one has evolved for a long time and has become pretty high quality and also stable so that it isn't changing much. Reading all of the discussion is a good idea and could help you understand the article much better. One thing that the editors have decided is that it isn't an article about pseudo-mayan new-age balderdash. References to this subject will always be removed. If this is what you don't like than it's too bad.

Senor Cuete 01:00, 15 August 2007 (UTC)Senor Cuete